Lords Sitting of 11 December 1902

Preamble
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Report of the Department Committee appointed to inquire into the present system of reporting industrial accidents.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)
Appendix (Section 1) to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1901.
NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTIGATIONS NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTIGATIONS. Reports of the British delegates attending the International Conferences held at Stockholm,Christiana, and Copenhagen with respect to fishery and hydrographical investigations in the North Sea, and correspondence relating thereto.

ICHTHYOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
Report of the Committee appointed to inquire and report as to the best means by which the State or local authorities can assist scientific research as applied to problems affecting the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland; together with Minutes of evidence, appendix, and index.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894-96.
Six orders relating to the landing in Great Britain of animals from the steamships "Kansas," "Irishman," "Victorian," "Cambrian," "Californian," and "Sylvania"; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 194.)
EXPIRING, LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
House again in Committee (according to Order).
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the object of the new Clause he now proposed to move was not a novel one, and he would therefore refer to it as briefly as he could, consistently with lucidity. It might be said that this Clause was not germane to the object of the Bill. That was a contention which he would venture to traverse before proceeding to explain the objects of the Clause. He would humbly submit that this new Clause was germane to the Bill, for the reason that the Bill dealt not only with educational matters and the teaching of the children in the schools, but it also embodied many regulations with regard to the management of these structures and the employment of these buildings in any manner in which they could be used for any purpose. He might mention incidentally that he thought this new Clause was germane to the Bill because by this Bill for the first time all ratepayers had a direct interest in the schools in which he hoped to persuade their Lordships meetings ought to be permitted to be held. In the past it was admitted, as he would show, by a Conservative Government in 1892, that it was right that meetings should be allowed to be held in schools which were in receipt of a Parliamentary grant, and that being so, the demand surely came with greater force now that the schools were maintained by the ratepayers who were the people who demanded that meetings should be allowed to be held. The subject was a very old one. He had had the honour of bringing it forward seventeen years previously in the other House of Parliament, at a period when the noble Duke opposite was also a Member, and when he (Lord Burghclere) had the pleasure of sitting on the same side with him. He had also brought it forward in 1892, and upon that occasion it was accepted by Mr. Balfour and the Conservative Government of that day. The object of the new Clause was to enable the inhabitants of a district to hold meetings in the school for which they paid. The necessity for it arose in 1885

771
with the introduction of the new Franchise Bill of 1884. Because he would venture to point out that this Clause only affected, or should only affect, schools in rural districts where there was no other building sufficiently commodious to permit of a political meeting being held in it; and it the Clause he now proposed did not meet that condition of things he would be glad to introduce suitable words in it to meet that objection. The object was that in out-of-the-way villages, where there were no other suitable buildings in which candidates might address meetings, they should be able to go down and address meetings in the schools. Before 1884, as ' was well known to noble Lords who had represented county divisions, the electors were fewer, and composed of farmers and others who were able to drive into the market towns to hear the addresses of candidates. In 1884, for the first time, the agricultural labourer, a poor man at the best, was included in the franchise. It was impossible for the agricultural labourer to drive into the market town as the farmers had done, and he certainly thought it was very hard that they should create an electorate of this class and then deny them the opportunity of listening to the politics of the day. Another reason for bringing this proposal forward was this. There was no doubt that these schools had been lent on occasions of this kind, but instances had arisen where the managers had allowed the use of a school to one side and had denied it to the other. There was another reason why it was desirable that the power of giving the use of these schools for meetings should be compulsory rather than permissive. He remembered well, in 1885, when the question of disestablishment was suddenly forced upon the country, and the cry went up that the Church was in danger. At the time of the election, he remembered, in one village, where the clergyman was supreme in the schools, that he allowed one candidate to address a meeting in the school to defend any attacks upon the Church, and when the other candidate came down the rev. gentleman made it a condition of his allowing him to speak in the school that the subject
772
of disestablishment should not be referred to. He ventured to submit that that was hardly a fair way to allow a school to be used for meetings. As he had said, this proposal was accepted in 1892, for the Resolution which he then moved in the House of Commons was practically embodied in this Clause. On that occasion the then Vice-President of the Council, Sir William Hart Dyke, said—
"That the Government must acknowledge that there is a real grievance to meet as regards the supply of places for political meetings. I wish to state, on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared to fully accept the principle embodied in this Resolution."
If the Government in 1892 was prepared to accept the resolution which this Clause practically embodied, at a time when the schools to which the Clause referred were simply in receipt of Parliamentary grants, how much more ready ought the Government of the present day to be to carry out the pledges given by their predecessors of the same political faith, when the use of the schools was wanted by the ratepayers who desired to hold these meetings in item. He had tried to be as brief as possible. He trusted that this Clause, which was a very harmless one, because it related to both sides of politics, and was merely to enable the poor electors to hear both sides of the subject, would receive the acceptance of. their Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 7 to insert the following new Clause: '(l) The managers of a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, and in the case of schools provided by that authority the local education authority shall permit the use of any room in the school on such occasions as do not interfere with the educational purposes of the school, for the purpose of the support of any candidate at a Parliamentary, municipal, or local election, subject to regulations made by the local education authority. (2) The local education authority shall, as soon as possible, make regulations for the purpose of this section, and the regulations shall be binding on manager and on persons obtaining the use of the school." —(Lord Burghclere.)
EARL NELSONsaid that as a voluntary school manager he had never known so unfair a thing to be done as to allow one side to speak in a school and not the

773
other. He had always insisted in his schools that both sides should be allowed to speak. He quite agreed that it was necessary for the agricultural labourer to be approached, and that it was impossible for him to go to the towns. But these meetings must of necessity take place in the evening, and this Bill was entirely for the education of England. One of the powers which the local governing body possessed under it was the power to use the school for three evenings every week for carrying on education, and if in addition they were to be used for political meetings as well, he did not see how those to whom the unprovided schools belonged would have a chance of using them.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he was quite aware that under the Bill these schools would be taken for three evenings a week for educational purposes, but he would venture to point out to the noble Lord that the Clause applied to schools in the villages of large agricultural constituencies. Take the constituency which he had had the honour to represent. That contained eighty-two villages. With all the desire to give vent to one's oratorical attainments, he would ask the noble Lord whether the demand upon any particular school would be such as to interfere with the educational duties it was necessary to perform there. It would only be used once or twice a year.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess LONDONDERRY)said he would follow the example of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and comment mi this Amendment as briefly as possible. He did not think this was the moment to introduce a Clause such as this. He believed there were provisions in the Ballot Act of 1872 and the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894 which dealt with this question, and therefore, in his opinion, it would not be wise at the present juncture to introduce such a Clause as this. If introduced at all, it should be introduced in a Bill of a separate character. This proposal had been discussed very fully in the House of Commons. The noble Lord might probably say that the debate was
774
confined to the question of unprovided schools, but he did not know that that, on any particular grounds, made it any easier for them, if they wished to do so, to accept this Amendment. The Amendment appiled to all schools. He sympathised with the noble Lord's view, but, as Lord Nelson had pointed out, with perfect justice, at present the schools were taken for three nights for the purposes of education, and if they trespassed still further on their time they would make a great encroachment and take away a great slice of the property of the owners of the schools. He sympathised with the view of the noble Lord that it was somewhat difficult for rural labourers, perhaps, to find opportunities to attend meetings and gather together, unless meetings were conducted in the schools. Speaking as a private individual and as an owner of schools and buildings, he might say he had always placed any buildings he had at the disposal of both political Parties, but that did not justify him in binding a manager to give the use of his schools in that way. He might, therefore, be allowed to hope that the noble Lord would not press this Amendment to a division, as under the present circumstances, and taking into consideration the Acts of Parliament which he had quoted, it would be impossible for their Lordships to accept it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHexpressed the hope that if his noble friend went to a division he would be supported by noble Lords opposite, because his Clause simply endorsed the practice adopted by the noble Lords to allow members of either Party to make use of the schools. His noble friend opposite had stated that he had always allowed the schools to be used in this way, and he had been in the habit of doing the same, and that being so. why should not this Clause be put in the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I spoke in that sense purely as a private individual, and I said I did not think I was justified in binding a manager to do that which I was in the habit of doing as a private individual.
THE 'EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought that that would not prevent the noble Lord and others voting for this Amendment as private individuals animated by public spirit. The people who refused to lend their schools were not a large class, but a class of very narrow political opinions. He, when a candidate for Parliament of a large rural constituency, wasrefused the use of a school in one district for the purpose of holding a meeting. What happened then, so far as he was concerned, was that a meeting was held out of doors, at which the clergyman was denounced for his refusal to lend the school in very strong terms, and as a consequence, he (the Earl of Portsmouth) gained a large number of votes which he would not otherwise have secured but for this very intolerant spirit. Surely it was not the desire of this House that that sort of thing should be allowed. Take the case of Wales. In Wales there were as many voluntary schools as board schools. All the rural electors, or a vast majority of them, in Wales were supporters of the Liberal party. The voluntary schools were held by managers or owners who were Conservatives. Public-minded Conservatives like the noble Lord would not think of taking advantage of this state of things, or think of denying the use of the schoolroom to either side, but there were a great many cases where men might be guided by a narrow spirit and do so. To his mind it was a very strong thing to say that the people should not have the use of these schools for political meetings, now that the schools were maintained at the sole cost of the State. His noble friend opposite had condemned his own attitude by saying he spoke as a private individual. Under these circumstances he appealed to their Lordships to say whether it was worth while keeping this grievance alive. He thought this was a justifiable Clause, and he hoped his noble friend would go to a division.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I only wish to add a few words to what has been said from this side of the House. I wish to support most strongly my noble friend who introduced this Amendment. I feel myself that we do not wish to legislate
776
against all owners and managers of these schools, but we wish to illustrate as clearly as possible the principle laid down by the noble Lord last night. With regard to the call for railroad tickets, we know that most people who travel by rail arc willing to show their tickets, but because a certain minority are not, a great deal of inconvenience is caused to those who are. It is just the same thing with regard to these schools. I have known over and over again, for no reason whatever, managers refuse to allow their schools to be used on political grounds, and it is for that reason we wish this Clause to be introduced. It will lead to no confusion because the matter will be regulated by the local education authority, and therefore, I strongly press the Government to think over what my noble friends have said upon this matter, and to agree to this Clause.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: Does the noble Lord who moved this Clause object to add words after the word "shall" to this effect, "If no other suitable place is available "?
LORD BURGHCLERE: I stated in my speech that if my Clause did not cover it, I was willing to add words to do so.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMexpressed the hope that the Government would not assent to this proposal, which was to place in the hands of the local education authority the power to hand over buildings which were used for educational purposes and make them available for political purposes. He thought it was a very bad principle; in his opinion, in the interests of the schools themselves, politics should be kept outside altogether. They had no security that one local education authority would not favour one Party and another education authority would not favour another, and thus they would have Party feeling brought into play in a sphere where it ought not to exist. It would be against the interest of the schools, and against the interests of the children attending them, to have these buildings made available for political purposes, and upon that ground he hoped their Lordships would not assent to the proposal of the noble Lord.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked the noble Lord who moved the Clause whether broken windows and other damage incidental to political meetings, which might be done to these buildings, would be paid for by the local authority.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the local authority, having power to make rules, would necessarily lay it down that the people who hired the school for a particular evening would repair any damage that might be caused.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not wish to trespass any further on the time of your Lordships. I am afraid the noble Duke will not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. I think all the arguments that can be put for and against this Clause has been put before your Lordships, and you now have the unpleasant duty of deciding whether meetings should or should not be allowed of a political character. I do not think this is the time when we should alter this Bill

CONTENTS.

Breadelbane, M.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Bristol, M.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Carrington, E.

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

Reay, L.

Northbrook, E.

Burghelere, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Coleridge, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Spencer, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sudley, L. (E.Arran.)

Stamford, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Tweedmouth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Nelson, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

York, L. Abp.

Onslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Radnor, E.

Balfour, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Romney, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Selborne, E.

Belper, L.

Wellington, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Stanhope, E.

Braye, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Strafford, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ailesbury, M.

Tankerville, E.

Chfford of Chudleigh, L.

Camden, M.

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Congleton, L.

Hertford, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Winchester, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

De Freyne, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

De Mauley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Halifax, V.

Dormer, L.

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

Knustord, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Llandaff, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Feversham, E.

Ridley, V.

Erskine, L.

Harrowby, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lauderdale, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Lucan, E.

London, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Morley, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

in acordance with the views of the noble Lord, and I have called attention to the fact that Acts of Parliament deal at the present moment with this deal at the present moment with this matter; therefore I am afraid I cannot accept it.
LORD BURGHCLEREsubmitted with all deference that as to the object of the Clause being introduced into this Bill. It was perfectly true that under the Ballot Act these rooms could be used for the purposes of election, but not for political meetings. It was not the ract, therefore, that there was any provision in any Act of Parliament which dealt with the object he had in view in proposing this Clause. He was extremely sorry that the noble Duke and the noble Marquess could not accept this Clause, but as it was a matter upon which there was very great feeling he was compelled to go to a division.
On Question, objected to. Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; NotContents, 77.

Lawrence, L.

Seaton, L

Wenlock, L.

Lindley, L.

Shand, L.

Wentworth, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Sherborne, L.

Wimborne, L.

Redesdale, L.

Stanmore, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Robertson, L.

Tredegar, L.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLTCY): Does the noble Lord move his Amendment after this Clause?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The Amendment which stands in my name is practically the same as that to be moved by Lord Lytton on the other side, and I am anxious to save the time of the House, and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDapologised to their Lordships for not having been in the House to move his Amendment when it was first called. He would not have ventured to ask their indulgence in this matter if it had not been that it was submitted for the consideration of that House. This question had been given notice of in the House of Commons but was never considered, owing, as he understood, to the exigencies of time. He did not know that he had very much to say with regard to the matter, because the Clause seemed to him to be so reasonable as to require no argument. It was a Clause merely for the purpose of giving power to the trustees of the schools to lease the schools to the local authority. If the local authority and the owners could agree together upon such a system as should give the local authority the full power of disposal of the school at certain hours, but should reserve the use of that school to the owners during other hours, it seemed to him that in many cases that would be a very useful provision, and one which would remove much friction and difficulty which might otherwise arise. He did not think it necessary to detain their Lordships longer with regard to this provision, which seemed to him so selfevidently desirable. He should like to know whether the Government accepted it. If they did not he might have to discuss its merits.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause, 'The managers of any school not pro
780
vided by the local education authority may at any time, with the consent of the owners of the school-house, and not with standing any provisions of the trust deed, agree with the local education authority to let the school-house on rent to that authority during such hours and with such reservations as to the giving of religious instruction as may be agreed upon, and thereupon and so long as such agreement shall last the school shall be conducted in accourdance with such agreement, but otherwise be managed and controlled as a school provided by the local education authority.'"—(Duke of Northumberland.)
A NOBLE LORD: Before the noble Duke answers, I wish to ask him whether the arrangement which the noble Duke who last spoke wishes to make cannot now be carried out under the Act of 1870? I know cases where such an arrangement has been carried out with the School Board, and when this act passes the County Council will stand in the same position as the School Board.
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I am rather surprised that the noble Duke in moving this Amendment, did not, as suggested by the noble Earl opposite, state, in the necessity for this transfer, why the condition laid down eith regard to the voluntary schools in the Act of 1870 does not meet his view and is not sufficient for his purpose. It is perfectly possible now for a voluntary school to be transferred to the education authority upon certain conditions, one of which may be the use by the voluntary managers of the school during certain hours for the purpose of giving religious instruction. The difference which I conceive would be imported by the adoption of this Clause is that the noble Duke would permit an arrangement to be made between the local authorities and the managers which would admit of denominational religious instruction being carried on during school hours. That is to say, a school managed by the local authority under the supervision of the local authority would not be the local authority under the supervision of the local authority would not be subject ot the Cowper-Temple Clause. if I understand rightly that that is the meaning of the noble Duke's Clause, that is a proposal we cannot agree to. The scheme

781
of the Bill is that denominational religious instruction shall continue to be given in i the schools now called voluntary schools as it is at present, and that in all schools which are under the local education authority, the Cowper-Temple Clause shall continue to be in force. That is a principle we cannot depart from. We I believe that any such provision as the noble Duke asks for would lead to religious difficulties with the local education. authority itself.
LORD STANMOREsaid he only desired to interpose for a moment. One reason for the Clause which the noble Duke had moved was this. Considerable doubt had arisen in the minds of a great number of persons interested in denominational schools as to whether, under the present existing law, they would or would not effect such relief as was there contemplated. A certain number of learned lawyers told them that, under the existing law, it was perfectly competent for such arrangements to be effected; other lawyers, equally learned, told them that such an arrangement could not be effected; he thought, therefore, that it was desirable that this Clause should be introduced in order to make that matter perfectly clear. Its acceptance would confirm that which was already believed to be the existing law by a very large number of persons. while its rejection, on the other hand, although it would no doubt technically leave the law as it was at present, no doubt would be considered as having changed it. He therefore hoped the Government would see their way to accept this or some similar Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was much obliged to the noble Lord who had just sat down for saying what he had. If the Government were perfectly clear that Clause 7 of this Act did not over-ride the power given to the local authorities by the Act of 1870, that was a very satisfactory interpretation of the Government position. Unfortunately, Parliamentary utterances, however clear, were not the law of the land, and there were great doubts upon this subject. He was no lawyer, but as he, read Clause 7 he thought there would be a great many more doubts in the future.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: What part of the Clause?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he did not know that he could point out at the moment what part of the Clause he referred to, but he should have thought the whole of the Clause. If the noble Duke would kindly amend the Clause in the way he thought best and add it to the Bill, and thus make perfectly clear what the law was, he would be greatly obliged to the noble Duke.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid it was perfectly true that the managers of schools were at the present time able to make arrangements to let their schools I to local authorities, but what precluded the owners of schools from making these arrangements was that the lease they made with the local authorities had to be made with the consent of the Board of Education, and to all intents and purposes the conditions imposed by the Board of Education in respect of the lease were such as practically amounted to a transfer of the ownership of the school-house from the hands of the denominational managers to the hands of the local authority. This Clause was proposed really very much in the interest of the local authorities and the ratepayers, because, after what had happened with regard to this Bill, with the very best intentions to make the very best of it, it was quite clear, after what fell from the rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, on the previous day, that it was extremely probable that a great many schools which had every desire to go on would not be able to continue as denominational schools. It is surely very much to the advantage of the local authorities, and very much to the advantage of the ratepayers themselves, that where such a thing occurred the denominational school owners should be able to make terms with the local authority, and should be able to lease their schools to the local authority, and at the same time to be able to retain these rights with regard to them. This Clause, in such a case, would do away with the necessity of building a second school in the area by enabling the managers to grant a lease of this sort. He believed arrangements of this sort would constantly be made if this Clause were accepted. He quite saw that, as the Clause was drawn.
in the last line but two, it would be open to the managers of the school to make conditions as to the religious management, but if this Clause was amended by the Government so that the school leased came under the rule governing the provided schools, that objection would entirely fail, and it would leave the religious instruction to be given by the denominational owners outside the school hours. It seemed to him a Clause which the Government could accept and a Clause that the Opposition could accept. It was really an advantage to the ratepayers. If the Clause were accepted, a query would arise as to whether something should not be brought in to modify Section 23 of the Education Act of 1887.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I submit that the noble Lords supporting this Clause have either been unwilling or have not been able to point out in what respect the existing law of transfer is insufficient. All that the noble Lord who has just sat down has said was that the Clause affecting transfer was under the administration of the Education Department, and that the Education Department makes conditions which prevent this Clause from coming into operation. That is, surely, not a matter for legislation, but one of administration.
On Question, Amendment disagreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that the Amendment standing in his name dealt with a subject which had been discussed on the previous Tuesday by their Lordships upon an Amendment moved by the Viscount Goschen. He did not consider it necessary to go over all the ground covered by some of the speeches made in that discussion, because he thought the equitableness and the justification of his Amendment had been admitted by both sides of the House. It had been admitted by the noble Duke, when he accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord Viscount Goschen. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord the Earl of Rosebery had taunted the Government with having done nothing to meet the grievance of the one-school areas, and on the previous
784
Tuesday had asked what steps the Government had taken to elicit the wishes of the parents in this matter. The proposal he now made was one which did much to remedy the grievance of the one-school areas, and a proposal which was directly concerned with the wishes of the parents, and therefore upon principle, at least, he claimed the support of the noble Lord to his Amendment. The only objection taken by Lord Tweedmouth to the Amendment of the noble Lord (Viscount Goschen) was that it interfered with the unity of an existing system, and that they could not do for secondary education that which they did not do for elementary. As that was the only objection of the noble Lord, it was only fair to claim that when the matter had been arranged for secondary education on the ground of the unity of our education system, it should also be arranged for our elementary education. He therefore claimed his support to this Amendment. He admitted that noble Lords opposite had expressed their desire that nothing which they had said on the subject of secondary education should be taken as a precedent when the subject matter of elementary education came up for discussion. He had, therefore, no wish to make any capital out of what had been said by the noble Viscount, and he would not refer to anything that had been said by noble Lords opposite, except to this extent—that they did not deny that their objection to his Amendment was not one of principle but of practice; they did not deny that it was just in principle, they did not deny that if it were put into practice and made to work it would supply the remedy to the grievance felt with regard to the one-school area, and they did not deny that it was in the interest of religious liberty, and was in accordance with their often reiterated principles that denominational teaching in all schools should be carried on at the expense of the denominations. What noble Lords opposite said was that it did not work out in practice. To that objection he would offer two remarks. In the first place, he would ask their Lordships to notice that the form in which he moved this Amendment differed substantially from the form in which it was moved in the other House, inasmuch as the duty of providing these facilities was in this case simply optional and was therefore loft at the discretion of the local authority, which

785
they had been so often asked to trust. In the second place, it would be said that this principle had not up to the present had an opportunity of proving beyond all doubt as to whether it was practicable or otherwise. He might best meet that objection by taking certain concrete instances and trying to prove, as he thought was the case, that in some cases it had been made to work satisfactorily hitherto. He would take the case of Birmingham, a case which was raised in the other House, when these words were used by the Prime Minister, Mr. A. J. Balfour, speaking of the Birmingham plan—
"He thought that by universal consent the plan did not eassy out either the intentions or the wishes of its trainers, and it had been abandoned."
It had been since proved that the statement of the Prime Minister was not strictly correct. It was perfectly true that when this system was introduced at Birmingham it was abandoned as unworkable, but another system had been founded, which had continued very successfully down to the present time, and in order to show what that system was he would refer to clause 8 of the regulations of the Birmingham School Board of the present day, amongst which was one by which the School Board was empowered to let its school at a rent of five shillings a day for half an hour's religious instruction on two mornings in the week, when any denominational teacher could come in and give that instruction. That was the principle he now asked their Lordships to sanction by this Amendment, and in testimony of its success in actual work he, would cite the opinion of the Birmingham and District Council sub-Committee, which thought the school as a whole could not be said to have proved a failure, and that they believed, from reasons given by those in the highest authority, that it was capable of a further and mere satisfactory development. He did not know whether their Lordships were aware that this system was being worked in the Army schools of this country. The Duke of York Royal Military School at Chelsea was working under the same principle, and every scholar in that school might receive definite religious instruction, in his own belief, from a minister of his own denomination. The parents or guardians had to define the denomination of the child
786
on his entrance into the school, and he had to remain in that denomination as long as he was in the school. That was to prevent any proselytism. He was informed that the Roman Catholic members of the school went out every Monday for an hour to receive their instruction, but that the Church of England clergy and the Presbyterian and Wesleyan ministers came into that school to teach their religion, and that in that school they knew no religious difficulties. In the case of New South Wales the principle was also at work. The Act which established the State schools in New South Wales provided two things; first of all it provided that religious teaching as against denominational teaching should be given in those schools, and beyond that it provided that full denominational religious teaching should be given by the recognised teachers of each religion. He submitted that those cases were sufficient to prove that this principle had been made to work in the past, and he challenged noble Lords who differed from him on this subject to produce instances where it had failed. All he asked was that some encouragement should be given to this principle, in order that use might be made of this facility and that it might be proved beyond dispute whether this system was practicable. He did not ask it on behalf of the Church of England, but in common fairness to all denominations. There appeared to him to be two dangers in this Bill which would, in his opinion, be met by this Amendment. The first was a tendency to a large, possibly, but wholly undesirable increase in denominational schools, because it was laid down in this Bill that the managers of any school which contained thirty members could come upon the public rates and become a school supported by the State. He saw in that a danger, where clerical opinion was opposed to the denominational character of the teaching given in a local school, of the increase and multiplication of these schools in order to obtain the denominational teaching that was desired. The second danger was this. He placed himself amongst those who had serious doubts as to whether this Bill would produce the result which they expected it to produce, namely, the preservation of the denominational character of these schools, and he could not but think that when once these

787
schools were made public schools and supported out of the rates their denominational character was very seriously imperilled, and he might say that this was only a question of time. If that was true, and it came to pass that these schools were to lose their denominational character, a provision of this sort would become necessary, if religion was to be preserved in our schools. All he asked was that an opportunity should be given to theological professors to see whether this proviso was possible. In those places where it was thought it was desirable the authorities would put it into effect, and if it were found not to work it would cease to be carried on. No harm whatever could be done by this extremely moderate proposal, and great interest would be taken in testing this experiment and seeing if it would work. It was a principle which was admitted by all parties to be the soundest and truest settlement of the religious difficulty.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 7, to insert the following new Clause, 'The managers of all public elementary schools, whether provided by the local education authority or not, may, at the request of parents of children attending such schools, permit religious instruction to be given to such children according to the tenets and faith of their parents, in the school buildings, at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction without making any charge for the use of such buildings, provided that the instruction be under the direction and management of a responsible person or a responsible authority duly accredited on behalf of the religious community to which the parents concerned belong, and provided that such religious instruction, and, if required, extra remuneration of the caretaker of the school buildings, and to make good any damage that may occur.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he just wished to add to the evidence brought the Amendment before the House, the case of the Drury Lane Day Industrial School. That school was an ordinary board school except that industrial training formed part of its curriculum, and in that school there was a certain provision for religious teaching under the control of ministers of different denominations. In that school there had never been any
788
friction in the working. With regard to the jews in the London board schools, there was a separate provision made. There was a provision made for Jewish education in a large school at Kilburn, and there was never any kind of friction there. They had here a great deal of how desirable it was that the education of this country should not be inferior to the education given abroad, and notably by Germany, but in Germany the whole of the education was under public control, and was supported entirely by public money. It was wholly denominational; the children were brought up according to their parents' wishes, and there was on kind of friction in the matter at all. sir J. Fitch, just before this matter was brought before the other House, wrote a long letter to The Times for the purpose of insisting that this plan was un brake and produced friction. His letter was full of assertions, but when he was J. Fitch could not do so. He had thought fit, however, to write a similar letter for the similar purpose of influencing their Lordships' debate this evening. Again, when he was challenge, he had no answer. It could be proved that this principle could be worked, not only without friction, but in the interest of the Church and of all the denominations. It was, he believed, the object of this Bill to provide for denominational education whenever there was a demand for it. As the noble Earl had told their Lordships, the Bill did provide for denominational education under Clauses 8 and 9. He thought hose were very valuable Clauses, but, at the same time, as the noble Lord had pointed out, it was a very expensive way of providing denominational education, and the consequence was that if they insisted that facilities should be granted, such as the Amendment proposed, it would result in a great saving with regard to the rates, and it would do something, and he thought a very great deal, to preserve in the future the denominational character of our schools, without inflicting the slightest hardship.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid he should very much regret if the Amendment, which had been moved in so careful and thoughtful a speech by the noble Earl, whose part in these

789
debates he was sure they all welcomed, did not elicit some of the strong, and, as he thought, widely distributed feeling upon this subject which he believed existed both in this House and in the country at large. The noble in the country at large. The noble Earl was well justified in saying that the great preponderance of argument and reason was in favour of some such plan as he had suggested. For his own part, the reasons which seemed to him to encourage to that one. They were all human, and when anyone took a particular course people were disposed to ask what he was aiming at, and to presume he was aiming at something favourable to himself and to his friends. So in the present case he said friendly that he was aiming at something favourable to the cause for which he was concerned, namely, the giving of denominational teaching to the children of his own denomination. But he felt equally clearly that the proposals of the noble Earl would do every justice to those whom on many of these points he was obliged to treat as opponents, and those two results were about equally balanced. His one claim or right to speak upon this particular matter was that his diocese contained a very large proportion of those great areas which surrounded our growing towns. and which had practically created new cities where before there were fields, and of which the Metropolis had the lion's share. In all those areas, broadly speaking, denominational education had no chance, for all the education was now provided by the School Boards, as it would be in the future by the local authorities. Therefore, those who were anxious, as His Majesty's Government were, to meet the fair claims of the denominationalists would see that there was a very real need—a very real greivance, he might almost call it —to be met. Turning to the other side of the matter, they had defended, as they felt bound to defend, the schools of the Church, but he thought they had never denied, as he certainly himself had never denied the fact that the case where the maintenance of these schools pressed hardly upon the Nonconformists was the case of a district in which the Church school was the only school in the area. What. then, was it necessary and right for them to do in regard to that grievance? It was necessary and right
790
to meet it in every way they could, and if it were possible, in every one of those schools for the noble Lord's Clause to come into effect, it was quite evident that while denominational teaching was carried on there would be an open door to Nonconformist teachers to come in and teach Nonconformisst children. He knew what was said with regard to that; he knew that it was said to be an old snare, and that it was well known that Nonconformists could not take advantage of it. If anyone were inclined to take up that objection, he would ask the objector whether he had considered the new provision in this very Bill which rendered it possible in all schools to have Nonconformist teachers. The acceptance of the noble Lord's Clause, which enabled such teaching to be given combined with the effect of that Clause in the Bill which provided the teachers to give it. It appeared to him a means of alleviating the Nonconformist grievance, which he for one should not only claim as a great concession, but which he cordially desired. Speaking for himself, and, he believed, his brethren upon the Episcopal Benches, they wished to do to their neighbours as they would have their neighbours do to them. The Cowper-Temple Clause was valued for one particular purose, and while it carried out that purpose it had an incidental result which might quite easily be dropped off. The Cowper-Temple Clause provided, as its main purpose, that in schools publicly provided there should be undenominational instruction. Its incidental effect was that it excluded all other kinds of teaching. In this instance, if the Amendment were admitted, nothing would be done to touch the effect of the Cowper-Temple Clause with regard to its main effect. It was his opinion that an Amendment of this kind would long ago have had a great deal more support and gone a great dela further, and would have now been part of the law of the land, had there not been on the part of the teachers opposition to the imposition of a test. He did not think that any fears or anxiety as to the imposition of a test in this matter were in the least likely ot be justified, and there was the less ground under a Bill which would open new posts to Nonconformists.
THE MAKQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I associate myself with the two speakers who have gone before me in congratulating the noble Earl upon the way in which he has moved this Clause. So plausibly has he moved the Clause that if it were allowed to go to a division now the plausibility of the noble Lord might have persuaded your Lordships to vote in its favour. But, although it was put forward so skilfully, the Clause, as it is at present, has neither practicability nor popularity. I think, my Lords, the practicability of this Clause, or rather the impractica bility of it, is shown by the letter to which the noble Lord opposite alluded, the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch in yesterday's Times. The noble Lord said that Sir Joshua Fitch was somewhat of an opportunist in his opinion.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he did not in the least say that he was an opportunist in regard to his own opinion, but that he had thought it worth while to publish both letters before this debate came on in order to insist on his own views.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I lay the greatest possible value on the opinion of Sir Joshua Fitch, and the letter he wrote to The Times to my mind puts plainly and clearly what would be the position of the schools of this country if this Clause were allowed to be passed. Therefore, as the question has been raised with regard to Sir Joshua Fitch, I shall ask to be allowed to quote to your Lordships one sentence of his letter with
792
regard to the position in which our schools would be if this Clause is allowed to pass—
"We shall have, for example, in a town in which there are several places of worship, a few children, at the hour assigned for the religious lesson in the school, going in different directions, some, it may be, to the parish church, where there is an Evangelical rector, some to a Presbyterian or Congregational chapel, and some to a High Anglican 'Mass.' They would all be expected to return and pursue the regular course of school studies at ihe end of the hour."
I would ask any one of your Lordships who has had any experience in the education of children in various localities as to whether if this Clause were accepted that would be desirable.
*EARL SPENCER: I do not quite see how this letter which the noble Marquess quotes can have any connection with the present Amendment; there is no mention of places of worship in the Clause before your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The interruption of the noble Lord is allowable, and I am quite willing to try and prove the connection. By this Clause it is permissible for all these ministers of religion to educate their children according to their own lights. What would be the result of such a condition of things? In the opinion of Sir Joshua Fitch it would be what I have quoted. I drop that point there with this remark, that I think that that paragraph is very appropriate to that condition of affairs; let me now go on to deal with what would be the condition of affairs from another point of view if this Clause were accepted. I have endeavoured to prove to your Lordships in the first place that it is impracticable. I now say that the Clause if passed would be absolutely unpopular with all those it was intended to benefit. The right rev. Prelate who preceded me dealt with the manner in which this Clause, as amended, would deal with the clergy of this country. He alluded more to the clergy of the large towns than to the country clergyman. What would the country clergyman sayif this Clause were accepted? He would say that his position would be absolutely impossible. He would be having quarrels in the parish if the Nonconformist minister came into his school

793
and interfered with his teachers. And what would be the position of the Nonconformist minister? Surely he would say, "The Church of England, with its large establishment of competent teachers, would flood the board schools; and the provisions would therefore be not in their favour, because the Church of England is better organised." There, once for all, you have the Nonconformist and the Church of England clergyman at sixes and sevens with each other. Then what would the teacher say? He would be in a harder position than either. He would naturally say, "I have the task of disciplining this school, but if I am to be interfered with by each of these ministers, who come down upon me whenever they please, what chance have I of maintaining discipline? My position is absolutely intolerable." Therefore you have all the three whom you desire to benefit set at variance if this Clause is accepted. I do not think my noble friends opposite will say I am out of order if I again quote the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch with regard to the teachers. Sir Joshua. Fitch says—
"The effect of the adoption of such a plan on the general discipline of flic school, and on the authority of the head teacher, would be disastrous."
For these reasons it is impossible for the Government to accept the Clause proposed by the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the Clause moved bv the noble Earl opposite was not a Clause which provided that the children were to go to Church outside the school; on the contrary, it was a Clause to provide that denominational religious instruction should be given in the school; and the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch to The Times had nothing to do with the matter. The noble Marquess had said that the Clause would be unpopular with the country clergy, He knew something of the country clergyman, and in all his schools, and in nearly all the schools he knew of that sort, the clergymen would be all willing and glad that the Dissenting Minister should come into their school and teach his religion to the children of his denomination. It had attained a very large support from all the clergymen of the Church of England, and when it was said by the noble Marquess that the clergy would not like it, he ventured to
794
dispute that statement altogether. Did not the noble Marquess know that this system prevailed in New South Wales without any friction whatever, and that the whole of the statistics brought forward by the noble Earl opposite showed that the system worked well in Birmingham and other schools, with no friction whatever, and did not the noble Marquess know that the teachers were quite as willing as the clergy to give the different denominations this opportunity?
*THE LORDBISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid the noble Lord had never been a country clergyman, whereas he had been in that position, and he knew what the opinion of the country elergyman was on such a matter as this, He believed they would welcome it as a matter of simple justice. He had no doubt that the Government would tell their Lordships that to accept such a Clause as this would destroy the symmetry of the Bill which had been prepared by them. What was that compared to the rights of the parents to say what religion their children should be taught? He stood up for the rights of the parents in this matter. For many long years he had advocated a scheme almost exactly similar, and had advocated that, especially in all our widespread country parishes which had only one school, there should be facilities given for Nonconformist teachers to teach all the children of Nonconformist parents in the schools. He knew there were difficulties in the way of carrying out this scheme, but under this Bill those difficulties would disappear, because upon the teaching staff of the under this Bill there could be one representative Nonconformist who could teach the children of his denomination. The country clergyman had far too much common sense not to welcome this Clause. It was not proposed by this Amendment that children should be drawn to different places of worship. What was suggested by the Clause was that there should be a room in the school during the hours of religious instruction, where the parents might have their children taught in the tenets of the religion which they professed. He believed that this Clause, if accepted, would work perfectly easily.
*LORD REAYsaid he only wished to say a very few words. This Amendment, in his opinion, was not necessary. He believed the managers of schools had the right to dispose of school buildings, when not used for instruction under the Code. All the arguments of the noble Marquess were directed against giving the religious instruction contemplated by the Amendment during school hours. The noble Marquess seemed to think that these facilities were to be given during school hours, but they had nothing whatever to do with the time table. What was intended by the Amendment was that these facilities should be given outside the school hours.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the noble Lord is wrong in that. The terms of the Amendment are "at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction," but I think the direct intention is that this religious instruction shall be given during school hours.
*LORD REAYsaid if that was intended it was not what he understood. He had gathered from the speech of the Mover of this Amendment that this instruction was to be given not in substitution, but as a supplement, to the regular religious instruction during the meeting of the school. Of course, if the noble Duke was right, the objections so well put by Sir Joshua Fitch did apply, and he would vote against the Amendment. He had also risen to answer the question put to him on the previous evening by the noble Viscount—:Lord Halifax—who had stated that the Gospel of St. John had been excluded from the syllabus of religious instruction in the London board schools. Since 1891 that Gospel had been included every year, and was now included in the Scripture Syllabus. The information supplied to the noble Viscount had therefore been inaccurate. As regards the noble Viscount's allegation that teachers were prohibited from explaining passages in the Prophecies as alluding to Our Lord, he could find no trace of such prohibition. The only instructions given to the teachers were that they should teach in accordance
796
with the provisions of Sections 7 and 14 of the Act of 1870, in letter and in spirit.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid so much had been made of the view that was likely to be taken by the clergy in this matter, that it was excusable that more than one member of the Episcopal Bench should intervene in the debate. References had been made to the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch, and any man who had the interest of eduction at heart derived great value from that gentleman's opinion. He had never read a letter of Sir Hoshua Fitch without finding that he had gained something from it, and the matter in question had been laid before them with all the wealth of experience which Sir Joshua possessed, but Sir Joshua Fitch's words had been used tonight as an answer to quite a different proposal from that to which his words had been directed. The proposal against which they had been directed—a proposal which had been frequently made in these debates—was that the managers should be compelled, at the request of a certain number of parents, to make such arrangements as were here described, but the noble Lord's proposal was that the managers should be left a discretion in the matter. He, personally, was prepared to trust the managers, and he entered a respectful protest against words which had been written against the forcing of such an arrangement upon the managers being used against the suggestion that the managers should do as they pleased. He saw great difficulty in such a plan as this working in the great board schools of our large towns, and personally, if he were a manager of one of these schools, he would be very loth to take advantage of this privilege. But it was an entirely different thing in the country districts, and even though the noble Marquess who was responsible for the Board of Education believed the country clergy would not like it, he might safely leave it to those to answer who spoke in a special manner for a few of the clergy in this matter. While it was certain that there would be many men in the country who would view it a little jealously, he was perfectly certain that the majority of the country clergy would welcome

797
the proposal as a matter of fairness, and would follow it out in practice, and they would find that it would work exceedingly well. He ventured to think that attention had not been given to the words of his brother the Bishop of Rochester when he pointed out that the Bill introduced a large number of Nonconformist teachers into our country schools, who would be the very people who would give this instruction if the Nonconformist ministers were not there to do so. At all events, he hoped it would be made perfectly clear to the public that, so far as the Bishops were concerned, they desired that these facilities should be given to their Nonconformist friends, to whom they wished justice to be done, and that if objections came to the proposal they did not come from the Episcopal Bench. Their Lordships would well remember the message of the Primate in which he said, had strength been permitted to him, he would have pleaded specially for such arrangements under this new Bill as would make it impossible for any sense the grievance to remain among the Nonconformists; and as the carrying of this Clause would be exactly the thing to give effect to the wish expressed by the Primate, he earnestly hoped it would be accepted.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think this discussion has been sufficiently prolonged, because, so far as I can see, the arguments have pointed entirely to one side, with one exception, and some statements in a letter that has been referred to, which, as has already been pointed out, do not apply to the Amendment in question. The noble Earl who brought forward this question with so much cleverness challenged me so directly to give him my support that I am bound to say that whatever my support may be worth, though I fear it may not be so beneficial as he may think, but rather damaging than otherwise, he is fully entitled to have, and shall have it. But I fear he rather underrated his own case. This is a system which is adopted throughtout the whole of the British Empire with the exception of these islands. In all our self-governing Australian Colonies this system has been adopted, and has worked without friction and with admirable results. I do not anticipate so fortunate a course for it within this kingdom of England, but I am encouraged by the
798
assurance of the right rev. occupants of the Episcopal Bench that if the Government accept it they, at any rate, will endeavour to give it a fair trial, and that therefore we may hope to see this system attempted in our schools, and thus force into them, that which I fear this Bill has not, the germ of a national system of education. My noble friend the Chairman of the London School Board has said this Clause is unnecessary. I do not venture to strive with my noble friend in argument on questions relating to education, but I would venture to point out that even if it should be unnccessary—and with regard to that I have my doubts also—it will be valuable as an indication to the managers. The managers may have willingness in their minds, but, perplexed as to what is and is not in the Bill, they may be doubtful as to their powers to carry this out. Therefore I think that this is a valuable indication, and its value cannot be over-estimated in this country. I believe this Clause would be very valuable in conjunction with the Clause you are able to pass into law. But, though it is likely to be valuable, it will not settle the question. I share the misgivings of the noble Earl who put forward this Amendment as to the effect of the Bill; but at any rate it will be a sign of grace and liberality and of hope for the future which I do not care to minimise.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid: This proposal was discussed several times in the Diocesan Synods, a body of clergy and laity, and they had come to the conclusion that in Church schools it was desirable to give these facilities to Nonconformist teaching. That decision was, after a considerable discussion, arrived at almost unanimously. The clergy at first, as the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government suggested, regarded it with suspicion; but, after the question had been before them on several occasions they had seen it was fair, and, as fair-minded men, they were entirely prepared to accept it.
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish to say one of two words upon this question. I rather differ ssfrom what has been said by noble Lords in support of this Clause, and feel great difficulty in going against the decision of the Government in this matter. I understood

799
the noble Marquess who represents the Education Department to say there was great practical difficulty in introducing this Clause into the Bill; the Bishop of Winchester admitted that there would be great difficulty in applying it to the great board schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The difficulty I saw was applying it compulsorily, which was the proposal made before. It makes all the difference in the world when the decision is to be left to the managers.
*EARL SPENCER: But is it of much use? If there is much difficulty in applying it in the great School Boards, is it right to apply it elsewhere? A good guide in these matters generally is to see what the authorities have to say upon the subject, and I understand the noble Marquess that it would not be practicable to carry out this Clause if it were accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What I said was that it would not give satisfaction to all those denominations which it is intended to benefit. I said the Nonconformists would not like it, the elergy would not like it, and the managers would not like it. That is the line I take.
*EARL SPENCER: I quite adopt what the noble Marquess says. If the various denominations dislike this Amendment, I am not in favour of introducing it. Why do they dislike it? Because they think it will operate to their disadvantage. For these reasons I am seriously not disposed to vote in favour of the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Earl extremely ably and very skilfully, and therefore I certainly shall support the Government if, as I understand, they are not ready to adopt the proposal of the noble Earl.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite willing to admit, and it must be admitted by everyone, that there is a great deal in the principle of this Amendment to which we can all give our assent. The position is rather a complicated position, and I
800
must endeavour, with your Lordships' permission, to explain as well as I can what that position is. This is part of a proposal brought forward in the Other House by Lord Hugh Cecil. This, I admit, is not the whole of that proposal, and it may not be exposed to all the difficulties to which the whole of that proposal is exposed, but it is part of that proposal and embodies the principle proposed by Lord Hugh Cecil in the other House. The Prime Minister, speaking of behalf of the Government, so far admitted the justice of the principle that he said that if it had been embodied in a Bill, and that he had been asked to vote for the Second Reading of such a Bill, he could not refuse to vote for it, and he actually did not vote against it in the division that was taken in the House; but he stated with equal clearness—with perfect and absolute clearness—that the Government were not prepared at this stage of this measure to introduce fresh matter of controversy. My Lords, I think this matter is so important that I dare say the House will forgive me for committing a breach of order and quoting words used by a responsible Minister in charge of a Bill in the other House. He said —
"He did not see that it was now practical at all. If this were embodied in the Bill, and they were now engaged in a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, he would go with the noble Lord without scruple; but if any vote of his in favour of reading this Clause a second time was to be taken as a pledge that the Government were going to make themselves responsible for any proposal of that kind, he thought they would be greatly misleading the House by adopting any such suggestion. Under these circumstances he could not vote against the Clause, but he should abstain from recording his vote on the question."
And, as a fact, he walked out of the House when the division was called. I think those words fully show how utterly impracticable a measure it would be to send this Clause back for discussion at this period of the session to the other House. This proposal has two sides, but only one of them has been much referred to in the discussion that has taken place; in fact the noble Earl on the Cross Benches whso is going to support the Clause referred exclusively to one side of the proposal. It is a proposal that in denominationl schools Nonconformist religious

801
teaching shall be admitted under certain conditions. We are bound to take the declaration of the Episcopal Bench that this would, generally speaking, be not unwillingly received by the managers of the voluntary schools. I venture to think their acquiescence in it would not be by any means universal, but I am bound to take the opinion of the Episcopal Bench that the clergy would not be against it; but it may be conceived that the prelates who have taken part in this discussion would have considered it to be an inequitable arrangement if it had been a one-sided arrangement. The proposal which they support is that this shall apply not only to the non-provided schools but to the provided schools also. Am I right? [Hear, hear!] Then I am right. It is to admit Church teaching into what are now called board schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: Where the managers desire.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is exactly the point. That is the objection. The local authority has to decide whether this admission of the Church teacher in the schools is to be permitted or not; that is to say, the local authority is to decide whether in certain cases the Cowper-Temple Clause is to be abrogated or maintained as it is now. Well, my Lords, we contend that the possibility of raising such a question will lead to interminable discussion, not only among the members of the local education authority themselves, but also in the election for the appointment of the local authority. It raises the whole question. We have, as I said before on a previous Amendment this evening, adopted a principle in this Bill by which we leave the question of denominational instruction where it was. We leave the denominational instruction to be given in voluntary schools where it was; and we leave it subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause in every case in the provided schools. The question whether denominational instruction is, under certain conditions, to be permitted in the provided schools cannot fail to raise religious discussions in the debates of every local education authority in the country and for that reason the Government cannot consent to the introduction, especially at this stage of the Bill, of this Amendment, knowing the
802
interminable length to which the discussions would be prolonged if such a Clause were sent back to the other House. Therefore we cannot agree to the acceptance of this proposal. I do not think that this point has been quite understood, because some noble Lords appear to be under the impression that this can already be done. I think some reference has been made to what is still going on at Birmingham. At Birmingham it is said that some of the schools are let at a certain rate to denominations for religious instruction within those schools at hours before or after the school hours. Well, my Lords, that, it appears, can be done under the existing law, but what this Amendment will effect depends upon the words in the proposal of the noble Earl, that religious instruction may be given "at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction;" that is to say, at hours within which the attendance of children is compulsory, and religious instruction at hours other than those at which attendance is compulsory can be permitted now by the School Board without, as is done in Birmingham, infringing the Cowper-Temple Clause. But, without abrogating the Cowper-Temple Clause, religious instruction can be given during the hours of compulsory attendance. This proposal does, therefore, amount to giving to the local authority in every county, and in every borough, the power, if it thinks fit, of abrogating to that extent the Cowper-Temple Clause, and our contention is that such a power cannot be given to a local authority without the certainly of raising prolonged, acrimonious, and probably interminable disputes upon the religious question, and it is on these grounds that we must object to this proposal.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I only want to ask one question of the noble Duke. He thinks the great danger of this Clause will be to introduce the religious question into the election of the local authority.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: And into their discussions.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Does the noble Duke really suppose that if this

803
Bill passes without this Clause the election of the local authority will be conducted without reference to the religious question?
Clause 8:-
Amendment moved —
"In page 5, line 19, leave out 'and' and insert 'or' "—(The Lord President.)
Agreed to
On Question, objected to. Their Lordships divided:-Contents, 68; Not-contents, 74.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'or' "—(The Lord President.)
Agreed to.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the Amendment which he desired to move was to insert in line 30, after the word "school," the words "not provided by the local education authority."He did so for this reason. As the Clause now stood, the local authority would be hampered in its operation by the first Section of the Clause. For instance, if the local authority should have come into the possession of a school which required such an enlargement as to practically constitute a new school, then the local authority might be prevented from carrying out this improvement, say, by ten ratepayers, or by any little clique of persons, or by someone who wished to bring in an independent school, a school he would say of this or that denomination not necessarily representing the sentiments of the neighbourhood. He ventured to ask for the insertion of these words because he could not understand why, or on what grounds of public interest, the local authority should be hampered in its operations by exposing itself to local opposition of this kind. They might assume that the local authority represented the spirit of educational progress and efficiency, and to insert all these hampering provisions was really to turn this Education Bill into a measure with a spoke in almost every wheel. Thereofore, without detaining the House further he asked that those words should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 30, after "school," insert not provided by the local education authority.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKthought the proposal was very hard, because it would allow the possibility of opposition whenever the local authority wished to enlarge one of the schools provided by the County Council. Surely this was a matter in which the County Council might be allowed to form their own opinion, and act according to that opinion, without being hampered in the way they would be if these words were not inserted in the clause.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Speeches upon this Amendment seem to me to go a great deal beyond the Amendment. As I understand it, the
806
right rev. Preclate would wish to give the power of providing a locl elementary school whenever they thought fit, and would not give a locus standi to the rate payers to propose any alternative. But he only applies his principle to the last sub-Section which Provides for an enlargement of the public elementary school,Which may amount to the Provision of a new shool. The Wole Clause goes on the Principle that equal facilities are to be give to the local education authority, or to the denominations, to provide a school, and it leaves it to the Board of Education to decide, after hearing the evidence, which proposal is most n the public interest. I cannot see the object of making a departure from the equal treatment of schools of all characters in the last sub-Section.
LORd RIBBLESDALEcontended that under the rather elaborate and in some ways hampering provisions of this Clause the education authority which happened to take over a non-provided school which was in such a state that it required enlarging to such an extent that it almost amounted to rebuilding would not, if the Lord Bishop of Hereford's Amendment were accepted, be obliged to go through all these precautionary and elaborate provisions which were set out in the Clause.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They have only to give notice of their intention.
LORD RIBBLESDALEreplied that giving notice was often a very long business.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
*LORD REAYsaid that in big towns it was of the utmost importance that when the necessity arose, or was likely to arise, for a new school, the site should be acquired, without giving public notice, by a private bargain. It was a great advantage to conclude a private bargain and to avoid the procedure of compulsory acquisition. This applied to the area which was already built over; it also applied to areas where no extensive building operations had as yet taken place, but where they foresaw that extensive building operations would occur, and

807
where consequently there would be a considerable rise in the value of property. This Clause prescribed that the local education authority must give public notice of its intention, and the "other persons" mentioned in the Clause would also have to give notice of their intention; but it would obviously be much easier for private individuals such as those "other persons" to acquire sites by private bargain than it would be for the local education authority, who, of course, had to obtain sanction for their expenditure. At the present time School Boards constantly acquired sites by private bargain, and he did not need to indicate that this was a great financial protection to the ratepayers. As this Bill mentioned in the next Clause that they must have regard to the "economy of the rates," he thought he was justified in asking whether under Clause 8 the present situation would be altered, or whether it would be in the power of education authorities to obtain, at all events, the same facilities which undoubtedly these "other persons" would have to acquire sites without proclaiming publicly that it was their intention to acquire them. As regards the building of the school, the Department would, he supposed, have the same power which it exercised now. What he had mentioned only applied to the site and not to the building of the school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I fail to see how it is possible for the local authority to acquire a site under this provision, in anticipation of the notice which they have to give. The noble Lord wishes the authority to acquire a site, and then he thinks that they may find that permission to build a new school will not be given. For their own protection it seems to me that they must get permission first.
*LORD REAYsaid that at present of the site was not required there was no difficulty in disposing of it. It was obviously in favour of the ratepayer that they should have this power, and that this risk should be run. At the present time the risk could be run and there was nothing to prevent it, but as this Clause was drafted he was afraid that in future it would be especially in populous
808
and growing towns a very serious disadvantage if the local authority had to give public notice before they acquired a, site.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not see how the difficulty is to be got over. The point is one which is quite new to me, but I will undertake to consider the matter and give the noble Lord an answer on Report.
Clause 8 agreed to.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he did not intend to move his new Clauses in the form in which they stood on the Paper, and he thought it would not be unfair to ask the noble Duke to deal with the First Clause he had on the Paper on. Report. As to Clause (b) he should not trouble their Lordships with it at all.
Clause 9:—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that two Amendments stood on the Paper in his name, but, as he wished to be able to save their Lordships one speech, if they would allow him to deal with both those Amendments at the same time, he would be able to put the matter before them more clearly than if he was obliged to take the Amendments one by one, which would necessitate him repeating his arguments. This Clause dealt with schools already recognised as public elementary schools. Clause 8 dealt with new schools, and provided that when it was proposed to build a new school certain persons might appear and might make objections. Either the managers, the local education authority, or any ten ratepayers could object. He wished, first of all, to call their Lordships' attention to the effect of the Clause as it stood.
The Bill provided in Clause 9 that—
"The Board of Education shall, without unnecessary delay, determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not."
Then followed words to the effect that in so determining they should be bound by certain considerations. The last words of the Clause go on to provide as follows—
"But a school already recognised as a public elementary school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, is not less than thirty."
He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the way in which this proposal would work. The Clause as it stood left it to their Lordships to draw the inference that the Board of Education was to decide when a dispute might arise, but it did not say between whom and, therefore, it left open a rather important question, but it said that the persons who disputed the necessity of a school might before the Board of Education. Then the Clause proceeded to say that no such schools should be considered unnecessary.That was to say that no question might be raised as to the necessity of a school which had thirty children or more in average attendance. He invited their Lordships to consider for a few moments how this Clause would work. The plan of the Bill was to place all control in the hands of the local authority as representing the ratepayers, and to oblige the ratepayers to pay or to maintain all the schools which were necessary, but at the same time they proceeded to say to the County Council, when they took over these schools, "You have got to pay for them all but you are not to be allowed to raise a question as to whether any of these existing schools are necessary if they have thirty children attending them." It appeared to him that that restriction did away with the whole value of the Clause. What was the good of first telling a local authority that they might raise a question, and then the practically withdrawing that permission? He was under the impression that the Government desired to trust the local authority. If they wished to trust the local authority why should they not allow them to raise questions beffore the Board of Education as to whether any school within their area was necessary or not. He would give their Lordships a few practical illustrations as to how this Clause would work. He had taken the returns of the Board of Education for the year 1901-02, and he would tell the House how this provision would work. He would first take as an example the county of Bedfordshire. In the county of Bedford there were 158 schools, which would all be taken over by the local authority, and which would have to be mainatained by them. They would be allowed to raise this question with regard to seven school only out of those 158
810
He was bound to say that this happened to be a very extreme case. He would now quote the statistics for the country of Hampshire. There they had 379 schools and they would only be allowed to raise the question with regard to thirty-eight of the total because there were only thirty-eight schools which had under thirty children in average attendance. He also wished to observe that in the country of Hampshire they had twenty-eight schools with between thirty and forty children in average attendance, twenty-two schools with between forty and fifty children, and there were fifity schools with pupils and scholars numbering between thirty and fifty, in regard to which the local authority would not be allowed to raise this question. He did not propose to give the local authority and power to abolish the school upon its own ipse dixit, but what he maintained was that if they carried out the principle of the Bill properly they ought to allow the local authority to raise the question as to the necessity of any school before the Board of Education. In the county of Northumberland there were 306 schools. In that country they had a right to raise the question with regard to thirty-two only. In the country of Northumberland there were thirtyeight schools with scholoars numbering between thirty and forty, and they could not raise the question. There were also twenty-night schools with between forty and fifty children, and they could not raise the question, and yet the ratepayers would have to pay for all those schools, although they would not be allowed to ask this question. In Worcestershire there were 281 schools, and there they could raise questions with regard to twenty schools. In the country of Lancashire, with 1,065 schools, they could only raise this question with regard to twentyseven of them. He submitted that by this Clause they were tying the hands of the local authority in a way in which they ought not to tie them. The local authority consisted of representatives of the ratepayers a very heavy burden under this Bill. Therefore, the least they could do was that if the local education authority, after reviewing the schools handed over to them, thought anu of them were unnecessary, they should be

811
allowed to place the case before the Board of Education. Surely it was not unreasonable to allow this. He wished to call their Lordships' attenetion to his Amendment, in order to show how he proposed to deal with this matter. If their Lordships would look at his Amendment, they would find that it made the following provision—
"A local education authority may inquire as to the necessity of any school already recongnised as a public elementary school, and may, with the consent of the managers, declare any such school to be unnecessary. In the event of the managers dissenting, the local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, who shall, without unnecessary delay, determine the dispute, and who."
And then they were to be governed by those considerations already enumerated in the Bill. Their Lordships would see that he had very carefully limited the right of raising questions to the local authority alone. He did not think it would be right that the ratepayers, or any of the other named bodies, should raise this question, but it seemed to him only simple justice that the local authority, who had got to maintain those schools in the future, should be allowed to consider whether the burden which was being placed upon them was one which ought to be borne by them. He would give an illustration from his own personal experience as to how this Bill would work. It so happened that there was a parish in Warwickshire in which Lord Ribblesdale owned one village, and relatives of his owned the other. Each of those villages had a small and inefficient school, with between thirty and forth children in average attendance. Some years ago they closed the school belonging to his relatives, and required the children to walk about half-a-mile further to Lord Ribblesdale's village school, and now that rural school had been converted into a fairly good one. But suppose this Bill came into operation, and they had not joined those two schools the ratepayers of Warwickshire, without any right to raise any question, would have been obliged to keep up those two schools, and maintain them for all time. The instance he had give was not an isolated case at all. Take the case of a village where there was a small Dissenting school and a Church school, and where the population were about equally divided between them. He knew such a case where the two schools were amalgamated, and where a
812
good thriving school had been the result of such amalgamation. But supposing they had not come to that arranagement, and this Bill had come into force, the ratepayers of Warwickshire would have been compelled, without any means of protecting themselves, to keep up those two schools, and to maintain those two inefficient schools instead of the one good school. He ventured to submit that the sting of the Govenment Clause was contained in the tail. They began by professing to allow the local authority to inquire, but they ended by saying that practically they were not to inquire in regard to any schools at all. Those were the reasons which he ventured to submit why their Lordships should accept his Amendment.
Amendment Moved—
"In page 5, line 33, leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the first 'in' in line 35, and insert—'A local education authority may inquire as to the necessity of any school already recognised as a public elementary school, and may, with the consent of the managers, declare any such school to be unnecessary. In the event of the managers dissenting, the local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, who shall, without unnessary delay, determine the dispute, and who'; line 38, leave out from 'rates' to the end of clause."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think that the first part of this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, and the effect of the Amendment is entirely contained in the second part. The first part seems to me to be unnecessary, because it is already provided for in the first words of Clause 7. Under Clause 7 it is provided that—
"The local education authority shall maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within their area which are necessary."
Of course, in order to decide whether they will acquire them or not, they must first establish that they are necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that by the Clause, as it stood, they were forbidden to inquire.
THE DUKE OF DEVONDHIRE: The noble Lord acknowledges himself that the concluding words are the important words.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not admit that.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The concluding words of Clause 9 are—
"But a school already recognised as a public elementary school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, is not less than thirty."
As regards existing schools, I wish to point out that they are all at present necessary, because the Department only gives a grant to schools which in its opinion are necessary. Therefore, as to existing schools, I do not see the difficulty which is anticipated by the noble Lord will arise. In the cases which the noble Earl has quoted it seems to me perfectly easy for the local authority concerned to do away with any school which, in their judgment, is unnecessary by arrangement with the managers. What inducement has any body of managers to keep up the fabric and provide for the repairs of a school which is unnecessary, and which can be equally well provided for by the accommodation in another school. The object of these words in the Clause is to provide an equitable supplement to the provision of Clause 8 in regard to the providing of new schools. We have thought it right to give to the local authority, under certain conditions, the power to provide a new school, even if there is not an actual deficiency of accommodation in the old one; but it is clear that this power might be exercised in such a way as to be inequitable to an existing school. The local authority might build a new school, and in that way deprive the existing school of the greater part of its scholars, and probably this would be a voluntary school. The Government provide by this Clause that so long as the number of thirty children, which is already recognised in the Code, are in average attendance, that school shall not be deemed unnecessary. I do not see in what other way we could give an equitable protection to existing denominational schools.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the answer which the noble Duke had just made was no answer to the case which he had put to the Committee at all. He asked what was the reason for this proposal. In the first place, he did not admit that Clause 7 in any way directed an inquiry into all the existing schools, and what he pointed out was that
814
these words at the end of Clause 9 made such an inquiry absolutely impossible in many cases. The words said that they should not inquire. Then the noble Duke said that Clause 9 was intended as a supplement to Clause 8. With all due respect, he submitted that that was not the proper way of describing it, because, while Clause 8 dealt with new schools, Clause 9 dealt with all existing schools, and to such new schools as might hereafter be permitted under Clause 8. He would now take the noble Duke's other point. He had said that he must protect the rights of minorities, and that it was possible that a local authority might build a new school in an unfair manner so as to destroy an existing school. But how could that happen? No school could be built which could become a public elementary school without due notice, and without there was every opportunity given for persons, including the managers of any existing school, to object and to be heard by the Board of Education. Those words were retained in the Clause, and so such a school could not become a public elementary school unless the Board of Education had permitted it to do so.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Board of Education may consider that there is a case for a new school, but it may also consider that it would not be just to the denominational school that it should be deemed unnecessary, because its average attendance was diminished.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the noble Duke made two suppositions in favour of the authorities which existed under this Bill. He assumed that the local authority wished, without good reason, to build a second school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I say that the new school may be necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that in the second place no new school could be built without the permission of the Board of Education, and the noble Duke assumed also that the Board of Education was not able to judge whether it was a right case for building a new school or not.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have stated that there may be a perfectly good case for a new school, but not for the extinction of the old school.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Duke would give him any reason why the local authority, which had got to pay for the school, was not to be allowed to raise the question of whether what it had to pay for was necessary and ought to exist. He did not ask for any arbitrary power to extinguish the school, but in common justice to the ratepayers who would have to pay for these schools, their representatives, if they thought fit, ought to be allowed to raise the question before the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: These small denominational schools for years past had been maintained under great difficulties.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I never raised that question.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think that we owe to those gentlemen who have been responsible for the maintenance of those small denominational schools a debt of gratitude, and if we were to allow them to be swept out of existence we should be unfaithful to those who have done so much for education in the past. That is the reason why we propose to maintain the present schools. This is no question of creating new schools, and schools with an average attendance of thirty children have always been considered as existing schools in the past. These schools have been kept up at great deprivation, and it is simply a debt of honour, and we are bound to maintain them.
*LORD REAYpointed out that in a case where there were two provided schools, each with thirty children, and where it would obviously promote both efficiency and economy that those schools should be amalgamated, the local authority, by this proposal, would be powerless. He did not see why they could not trust the local education authority in the first instance and the Board of Education in case of a difference of opinion to settle the question. Why should the Board of Education be hampered in the decision it had to give when a dispute arose? If his noble friend went to a division he should certainly vote for his Amendment.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that the provision made by this Bill was a most
816
wasteful arrangement from the point of view of the ratepayers. They were going to maintain all these small schools of thirty children, and yet the Government professed that they had brought in a Bill for improving education. No doubt the new authorities would do their best to make those schools efficient, but he wished to point out that they would have to have a teaching staff just as large for thirty children as for schools with 150 children in order to make it efficient. Therefore, if the schools were to be made efficient, as he supposed was intended in the case of voluntary schools, they would be imposing upon the ratepayers a great and wasteful expense which would not be necessary if they allowed the schools to amalgamate.
LORD HERRIESpointed out that the Roman Catholics had a great number of these small schools which were acknowledged by the Department. He was afraid that the question of the rates might have considerable weight with the local authority, and might decide to put an end to these small denominational schools. There was in a small town in his own neighbourhood a Church of England school, a Wesleyan school, and a Roman Catholic school, and he doubted whether the average attendance was much above thirty children. In such cases there would be a very great inducement on the part of the ratepayers to close one of those schools in order to save the rates. All those schools had been acknowledged for a great number of years, and had been efficiently conducted; and he thought it would be hard upon the denomination to which they belonged that they should be put an end to merely because the local authority thought they were not necessary, without perhaps taking into consideration the question of the religion of the parents who sent their children to those schools. Such schools might be closed simply because the local authority thought that, having regard to the economy of the rates, those schools should no longer exist.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that he never proposed that the local authorities should have power to close such schools.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid that it appeared to him that if anybody

817
objected the whole matter went before the Board of Education, which would have to decide whether a new school was necessary. In coming to that conclusion, there was a distinct indication that the managers of any existing school might object to the establishment of a new school by the County Council. If there was a proposal by the County Council to have a new school, it was quite right that there should be an opportunity of going to the Board of Education to have the case heard, and to decide whether on the whole they thought it was right for the County Council to have a new school or not. When they came to the next Clause, which the noble Duke said was intimately connected with Clause 8, then it came to this—that those words at the end of the ninth Clause would stereotype for ever any school that had not less than thirty children in average attendance. It was not as if the proposal of his noble friend gave power to the County Council to abolish such schools. His proposal was simply that those schools should not be stereotyped, and that it should be possible for the County Council to go to the Board of Education and ask them to consider whether or no a certain school should be kept up. In spite of what had fallen from his noble friend behind him, he thought good grounds had been put forward showing that the circumstances connected with these schools should be weighed by the Board of Education. If their Lordships would look at the words they would see that in determining whether a school should be kept up or not, the Board Education had to have regard to the interests of secular instruction, to the wishes of the parents, and also to the education of the children. That would apply to cases where the minority consisted of any particular denomination. They also had to have regard to the economy of the rates. Surely that was protection enough without stereotyping these schools simply because they happened to have thiry scholars. He hoped that the Government would see that these words would hamper the action of the County Council, and might possibly put a charge upon the rates which the ratepayers ought not to be charged with.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid it had been pointed out that it was desirable that they should give greater liberty in this matter. This was just an instance of the kind of harm that came from the inveterate and unhappy prejudice against denominational schools which prevailed on the other side of the House. If it were possible to regard the Board of Education as being permanently a fair and impartial arbiter between the denominational and undenominational schools, without prejudice against either class of schools, we should then probably be very much more ready to see matters of this kind entrusted to its arbitration. But we know the forces in the country hostile to denominationalism which operate upon some of our public bodies, and they will certainly tell upon the Department which comes under varying political influences. Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, they were obliged rather to welcome, when it came from the Government, a permanent statutory security for the small denominational schools.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHassured the right rev. Prelate that noble Lords on that Bench were not in the least moved by any question of prejudice against denominational schools. Their view was simply that it was not wise to lay down the limit of thirty as a test of whether a school should be considered efficient or not. The test should be whether the school was efficient and necessary. It seemed to him that to maintain a school that was inefficient, simply because there were thirty children attending it, was doing a very wasteful thing, and was imposing an altogether unfair burden upon the ratepayers.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXwas quite sure that the words proposed by the Earl of Camperdown in their working were likely to do great injustice to small denominational schools, and he trusted the Government would not consent to alter the Clause as proposed by the Bill in this respect.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that in his opinion what the noble Lord had pointed out did not seem to represent the effect of the law at the present

819
moment. At the present time, a school which had got thirty scholars, and was efficient, was entitled to claim a grant, and to continue to receive the education grants which were now given. Therefore, they were not stereotyping anything that did not already exist.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYsaid that every one of these schools must be an efficient school under the general law, and the County Council were bound to keep them up as efficient schools; therefore, the word inefficient introduced just now could not apply to any school kept up by the County Council. He was a little startled when he heard the argument that schools of 150 children did not require any more teaching staff then schools of thirty.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Do not the right rev. Prelates forget that in future these schools have to be kept up by the public. That fact seems to have been left out of consideration by my noble friend, Lord Herries, who spoke of a small but deserving school of which was cognisant on his estate.
LORD HERRIES: Not on my estate.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: At any rate, it was a school where the total attendance averaged thirty scholars. But surely, if you wish to have a really great national system of education, you do not wish to stereotype for all time these small and petty denominational schools? What you wish to do, I presume, is to strengthen the strong denominational schools, and maintain those that are efficient; but to keep scattered all over the country at the expense of the ratepayers these small schools, seems to me to be something of an injustice. I must say that I think the right rev. Prelate who presides over the See of Rochester rather let the cat out of the bag when he said his object was to stereotype for all time these

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Wellington, D.

Hertford, M.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Lansdowne, M.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Winchester, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Bristol, M. Northumberland, D

Camden, M. Abingdon, E.

Rutland, D.

Cholmondeley, M.

Denbigh, E.

small schools at the expense of the public.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is quite a mistake to suppose that a small school must necessarily be an inefficient school. A school with an average attendance of thirty is, in some respects, an ideal school, because it can be managed by one teacher. With regard to the noble Lord's point about existing small schools, and never getting rid of them, I should like to make a little further inquiry into the matter. I cannot conceive why under this Bill it should be the object of anyone to maintain two expensive schools when one large school would meet the necessity of the case. This Clause was introduced for the purpose of enabling the previous Clause 8 to work more equitably. We thought it right to give to the local education authority, or to any denominational body, as the case may be, power of providing a new school, even though there might not be a deficiency in school places. We think that the power may be very fairly exercised in a parish where there is now only a denominational school, but where there is a large majority of Nonconformists. As noble Lords are aware, under the present system, if there is not a deficiency in school places a provided school cannot be built. This Bill enables the sanction of the Education Department to be given in order that such a school may be built, and it may be quite right that such a school should be built. But we do not think it would be right at the same time to crush out of existence the denominational school which has been built with the knowledge and approval of the Government, and upon which a certain amount of capital expenditure may have been laid out. We do not think that such a school ought to be crushed out of existence so long as it can maintain an average attendance of thirty children.
On Question, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 22.

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

London, L. Bp.

Ellenborough, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Elphinstone, L.

Feversham, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Harrowby, E.

Erskine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

James, L.

Londesborough, E.

Forester, L

Kenyon, L.

Lucan, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Kinnaird, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Nelson, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Onslow, E.

Winehester, L. Bp.

Lilford, L.

Radnor, E.

Lindley, L.

Romney, E.

Addington, L.

Ludlow, L.

Stamford, E.

Allerton, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Stanhope, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Manners, L.

Strafford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Balfour, L.

Middleton, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Wharnecliffe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

North, L.

Belper, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Braye, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Halifax, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Rothschild, L.

Hardinge, V.

Calthorpe, L.

Rowton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Chelmsford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Llandaff, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Seaton, L.

Congleton, L.

Sherborne, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Suffield, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

De Mauley, L.

Tredegar, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Dormer, L.

Wentworth, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Wimborne, L.Lincoln. L. Bp.

Dunboyne, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Ribblesdale, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Morley, E.

Stalbridge, L. [Teller.]

Northbrook, E.

Burghelere, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Portsmouth, E.

Coleridge, L.

Torphichen, L.

Spencer, E.

Denman, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Tankerville, E.

Greville, L.

Welby, L.

Caluses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:—
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 29, leave out the second 'the' and insert 'a.'"—(The Lord President.)
Agreed to.
*LORD KINNAIRDasked whether there would be any public notification as to who would take the place of any foundation managers who retired, or in case vacancies were caused by death, or from any other cause. He wished also to add a few words to his proposed Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 7, after sub-Section (2) insert as a new sub-Section: '(3) Any future manager shall be chosen from a list prepared by the Trustees and advertised in the usual
822
public place in the district, any ratepayer shall be eligible to have his name inserted on this list, prepared by the Trustees having been duly proposed and seconded after due notice given.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The managers will have to be chosen under the provisions of the trust deeds. The noble Lord's Amendment proposes to override the trust deeds, and suggests that they should be elected from a list of reatepayers.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HERRIESmoved a new Clause providing an appeal to the Board of Education if the managers of any school or college felt aggrieved by the action of the local education authority. The object of the Clause was to prevent any injustice being done to the

823
managers by the action of the local authority. They might occasionally find cases in which it was possible that the local authority might do some injustice to the managers of the local schools. He must say that the fact that the local authorities in some places exercised their powers over rather restricted areas supported him in the belief that there was some possibility occasionally of some ill - feeling or prejudice, or some act of fanaticism, which would induce the local authority not to be altogether fair and just to all the schools under their control. It was for that reason he thought it would be best to give a general power of appeal to the Board of Education. The Board of Education was situated in a more serene atmosphere than was always to be found in local districts, and, besides that, even the local authorities were subject to the control of the permanent officials, who were able to look at these questions very often without any political bias. For those reasons he begged to move that this general power of appeal should be given to the managers of all schools. There was one particular point which he thought was rather important, and that was the question of books. Under the Bill, as it stood, it would be possible for the local authority to prescribe any text books they might please. Upon questions of history he could quite understand the local authority having very strong feelings on the subject, and they might supply text books on matters of history which might be altogether unsatisfactory to the denomination to which the school might belong. In circumstances of that sort it was quite fair that there should be an appeal to the Board of Education. It was to prevent any possibility of an injustice being done to the managers that he desired to add this Clause, which enabled any managers affected to appeal to the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has raised a question which, to my mind, is already dealt with by this Bill. He proposes now a Clause which seems to relate more to higher education. I do not think it is necessary for the noble Lord to press the Clause, because already provision is
824
made in Clause 7, Section 3, for the determination of disputes. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to include this general power of appeal, which would do more harm than good. If my noble friend will turn to page 4, and look at Section 3, he will find that that entirely meets the question he has raised.
LORD HERRIESasked if that would cover every case throughout the Bill.
The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Certainly.
LORD HERRIESsaid that in case of small differences arising between the managers of the school and the education authority, under Part II., as well as under Part III., there was no appeal provided for, and one did not see where the difference came in.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:—
The EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the first part of Clause 13 provided—
" The local education authority may group under one body of managers any public, elementary schools provided by them, and may also, with the consent of the managers of the schools, group under one body of managers any such schools not so provided."
It might happen that the local education authority would think it was to group, say three or four schools, and that the managers of one of those schools could withhold their consent. It seemed to him to be rather hard, if that consent was unreasonably withheld, that this should be allowed to spoil the scheme, and consequently he proposed his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 7, after 'provided,' insert ' provided always that if, in the opinion of the local authority, the consent of the managers of one or more of such schools be withheld unreasonably, the local authority may appeal to the Board of Education, who, after due inquiry, shall determine the dispute."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The grouping of schools would, no doubt, be extremely convenient, but I think it would be inexpedient for schools which were unwilling. The principle of the

825
Bill is to keep denominational schools, as far as we possibly can, in the position in which they are at present, and to group schools, even to others of their own denomination, might deprive the school of its special character. I should object a good deal to the power which it is proposed to thrust upon the. Board of Education to settle these sort of differences, and it seems almost impossible for the Board of Education to undertake such a duty. We think that, on the whole, the best thing to do is to adhere to the provisions of the Bill, which require the consent of the managers. Probably all parties will agree, but in a great majority of cases the grouping will, be to their mutual advantage.
Amendment negatived.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MAN-CHESTERsaid he would not detain their Lordships very long on the Amendment he now moved. It was provided in the Bill that there might bo groups of schools. It was also provided in those schools that with the consent of all parties concerned, including the managers and the local education authority, the schools might be grouped in certain areas in certain numbers. It seemed to him that the Government had given an indication of their willingness that these schools, by means of the managers of the groups, should receive money, for in the second Schedule, on page 20, line 25, it was provided that a certain surplus of money from the Parliamentary grants which was not needed to pay outstanding liabilities might be paid over for the benefit of any general fund applicable for these purposes; so that the principle was not only that there might be groups of schools, but a certain small sum of money might be paid to them. Therefore they might receive money, but it was nowhere stated that they might receive, if the managers of the several schools in the group were prepared to pay it, the surplus resources of those several schools. It might be said that anybody could receive what another man was willing to pay unless the conditions of the gift and the receipt of it were unlawful, and that therefore, if the managers of any school in the group desired to pay over any of the resources in their hands to be dealt with by the council of the grouped schools, they could do so,
826
and the council might receive what was granted to them. That was the reason why he had proposed the perfectly voluntary power which was contained in the following words to be inserted in the Clause after the word "education:" "And the body of managers of any grouped schools may receive and dispose of the pecuniary resources of any schools within the group" The reason why he put in the words in this form was. that everybody knew that while, no doubt, the associaton of schools would very frequently lead to the more efficient and economical administration of their affairs, that was not the principal purpose for which the schools were grouped. A right rev. Prelate from the Bench: behind him said yesterday that the poor schools must get the rich schools, to help them. That was quite true, and unless the poor schools succeeded in getting the rich schools to help them, they could not be saved from bankruptcy. Therefore their Lordships would see that it was a matter of grave practical importance that every encouragement should be given to those who were rich to overcome their natural selfishness and to join a group of schools with a view of contributing from their abundant resources to supply the needs of the poorer schools. He thought it would contribute greatly to induce them to do. so if he could persuade the Government just to put on the face of the Bill a provision of the kind included in his Amendment, because it would mean that in their view this was the natural consequence of grouping. It would help them greatly, in case a selfish school tried to stand out, to be able to point to this Amendment, and state that it was contemplated by Parliament that such a thing as this was a natural thing to take place. That was the purpose for which he proposed that those words should be introduced. He did not say that these word conferred any new power, but they expressed a purpose, and they showed what Parliament thought was the normal state of things which ought to exist in a set of grouped schools. It was for this purpose alone that he asked the Government to do something which he thought was in entire conformity with the larger design of the Bill, namely, to set on the face of

827
this measure the desire that they would be glad to see that selfish and rich schools had a little pressure brought to bear upon them in order to induce them to contribute out of their abundance to the necessities of their poorer brethren.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 14, after 'education' insert 'and the body of managers of any grouped schools may receive and dispose of the pecuniary resources of any schools within the group.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
EARL NELSONsaid he did not exactly understand what was meant by "pecuniary resources." He imagined that "pecuniary resources" meant endowments. He knew a school which was endowed for the benefit of the parish in which it was situated, and he should be sorry if, under this Clause, any part of the endowment was taken from the parish and given to a group of schools. He thought that one of the most valuable things contained in this Bill was the provision which provided for the grouping of schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he wished to answer at once the question which had been put to him. By "pecuniary resources" he did not contemplate the receipt of money coming from endowments, although it was possible, in some cases, that part of an endowment might come to the schools What he contemplated was, certain schools receiving a certain portion of the fees and subscriptions which would be made possible by this Bill. He contemplated that they would have to raise subscriptions, and he thought the Bill would require them to raise larger subscriptions than they had ever raised before. Those were the pecuniary resources to which he referred. He ventured to suggest to the noble Lord that all he asked was not any declaration that it should be the duty of a special set of managers to pay over any of their ordinary resources, but that it should be possible for the managers of a school to do so if it was lawful, for them to do it, and if they were disposed to do it. He would go no further than that. If it was lawful and they were so disposed, he only asked that it might be declared that the managers of a group of schools might
828
receive and dispose of their pecuniary resources. Of course, if a particular school refused to pay its resources into the hands of the managers of the grouped schools, there would be nothing to dispose of; but if they did choose to pay over what belonged to them into the hands of the managers of the grouped schools, they would have that sum to dispose of. It was a purely voluntary arrangement.
EARL STANHOPEsaid that he knew a district where this system had been pursued with very great success. He was strongly in favour of the proposal of the Government for the grouping of schools in country districts, because he thought that without this principle in many instances the small schools could not be kept up. He was a member of a County Council, and he hoped and trusted that in many rural districts there would be a grouping of the schools. He very much hoped that the Amendment proposed by his right rev. friend would be accepted, because he believed that certainly this Act could not be carried out by a large committee of a County Council. It would have to be largely administered by a delegation of powers as provided for in the Bill. He hoped that any money which might come to grouped schools would be administered by the managers of those schools for the benefit of the group which they had to administer. Hetrusted that His Majesty's Government would accept this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid it appeared to him that the Amendment either carried them a great deal too far, or was entirely unnecessary, if it meant that they were to be at liberty to spend money subscribed distinctly for a particular school for the benefit of a group of schools it would require new legislation. He could not understand why they needed legislation of this kind to enable them to spend money which had been voluntarily subscribed to meet the needs of schools in a particular area according to the wishes of the donors. Did this proposal mean to take money belonging to a particular school in order to use it for the benefit of the whole group?
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTE: Only, of course, by the free consent of that particular school.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid that if it was intended to apply the money belonging to a particular school he should be inclined to think that such money would have to be devoted to the purposes which the donor intended. Either this Clause went too far, or it was entirely unnecessary.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid that if he followed the explanation which had been given correctly, it meant that where money was left for the benefit of a particular school in a particular parish, and the managers of that school felt so disposed, they might make a contribution out of that fund to the new group of schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he did not intend that. The noble Duke had evidently pointed to a defect in his Amendment, because he had not included that possibility. He was only talking about such resources as it was lawful for the managers of a particular school to dispose of. If any of the resources had been designated in any deed for a particular body, it would not be in the power of the managers of a group of schools to dispose of them, and they must spend those resources as the trust deed directed; but if there be any part of the school funds available, as contemplated in one of the Clauses of this Bill, which might be diverted legally to any other purpose, then he desired that that part, and that part alone, might be disposed of by the managers. If the Governmeiit would accept his proposal in that way he should be glad to add words to achieve this object. He suggested that his Amendment should be amended as follows:—
"And the body of managers of any grouped schools may receive and dispose of the pecuniary resources of any school within the group which it may be lawful for such schools to devote to a general purpose."
THE DUKE of DEVONSHIRE: As far as I can gather, the Amendment, as amended, is quite unnecessary, and I think the Amendment in its original
830
shape is certainly open to the objections raised by my right rev. friend, the Bishop of Winchester.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he would withdraw the Amendment if the Government could not see their way to accept it. He wished to ask whether he might take it that if there were any funds of the kind he had described which it was lawful for the managers of particular schools to pay into the hands of the general managers of a set of grouped schools, that those managers of the grouped schools might receive such funds and dispose of them? He was asking the Lord Chancellor this question. He was told that it was not necessary to insert the words he had moved in order to achieve the object he had last stated. If that were true he would very much like the Lord Chancellor to tell them so, if he could. If there was the slightest difficulty about the answer he would not press his question, because he knew what a terrible thing it was to ask for a legal opinion at a moment's notice. He only asked for a reply in case the learned and noble Earl had happened to think about it before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I have not the smallest difficulty in answering the question, although I have not had the opportunity of considering the right rev. Prelate's observations before he was good enough to make them. It must be one of two things. Either the funds described as pecuniary resources belong to the grouped schools, or they do not. If they belong to them, they may spend them; if they do not, they cannot.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid he had put down this Amendment at the desire of the County Councils Association. Under sub-Section 2 of Clause 14 the County Council was bound to pay the money to the parishes concerned in aid of the rate which was to be levied on that parish. He did not want to interfere in any way with that provision, but he wished

831
to add at the end of the Clause the following words:—
"Provided that the local education authority may apply to the Board of Education for a scheme for the appropriation of any such money to educational purposes, and if a scheme shall be made such money shall be appropriated in accordance therewith.
He thought it was exceedingly probable that in many parishes, instead of desiring to have a certain sum, that they would prefer the money being appropriated to the establishment of scholarships in their schools or for some other useful educational purpose. He did not wish to make that a necessity; he only wished to give the County Council the power of applying to the Board of Education for a scheme for the appropriation of any such money for educational purposes, and if such scheme was approved of he desired that such money should be appropriated in the manner laid down in this Clause. He felt certain that His Majesty's Government would not object to the principle of this Clause for a very good reason—namely, that in 1896 they introduced in the Education Bill a Clause which gave the County Councils power to go to the Charity Commissioners for schemes in respect of educational endowments within their county. That Clause the County Councils Association would like introduced into this Bill. The Government did not introduce such a Clause, for reasons which he was not aware of, and he could not expect, in the present condition of the Bill, any large Clause of that kind to be introduced. At the same time a much smaller power in respect of these particular endowments might properly be introduced into the Bill at the end of Clause 14, and the effect of such an Amendment as he had moved, he thought, would be greatly to the advantage of education.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 7, after 'parish,' insert 'Provided that the local education authority may apply to the Board of Education for a cheme for the appropriation of any such money to educational purposes, and if a scheme shall be made such money shall be appropriated in accordance therewith."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he` was afraid that under the Bill some injustice might be done to a certain class of endowment relating to apprenticeship.
Those endowments, he fancied, in certain schools, had been transferred under Clause 23 of the Act of 1870, and were now in the possession of certain schools. If those endowments originally meant for apprenticeships were turned over to be utilised for structural repairs, they would be perverting the original intentions of the pious founders. Therefore, he ventured to make an appeal in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment.
EARL NELSONsaid that endowments were certainly given, among other things, to pay for a master and mistress in bad times, and there was no doubt that it was part of the original intention to keep the buildings in repair. Now that the parish had got a much better building, surely a part of such an endowment could be taken to keep the building in repair for even then it was benefiting education. In the case of those endowments he had referred to, he thought the most proper way of employing them would be to form them into scholarships for distinguished boys in the parish.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid the clause did not touch voluntary schools, but only schools for which provision was made by the Council.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not think the Clause can apply to endowments of the kind referred to by the noble Lord opposite. Sub-Section (2) applies to—
"Any money arising from an endowment and paid to a County Council for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the Council, shall be credited by the Council in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of Part III. of the Act."
That is to say, for the maintenance of the school. I do not see how endowments of the kind referred to by the noble Lord would come under that description. The intention of this sub-Section, as it stands, is to secure that any endowments which go to the local authority, and not to the managers, shall be used to reduce the rates for elementary education in the parish in which the endowments have hitherto been enjoyed. That has been their effect up to now—that is, to relieve the educational expenses of the parish as far as they went; and there does not appear to me to beany sufficient

833
reason for diverting them from the object to which they have hitherto been applied.
EARL SPENCER: I should Iike to know if the noble Duke means that this Clause only applies to endowments specially devoted to diminishing the rates of certain parishes. I do not read it in that way. I should like to divide what I am going to say into two parts. With regard to the proposal of my noble friend, Lord Northbrook, I think it is a pity that endowments of this kind, not intended to relieve the rates, but to give help to those who wish to rise on the ladder of education, should be now devoted really to the relief of the rates or of the expenditure of the local education authority. I therefore should heartily sympathise with my noble friend in what he has proposed. but I have a doubt—and I put in a caeat here—as to whether this does not come within privilege. There is a question whether tje rates stand in a different position to money paid out of the Exchequer, but this money fromk endowments would relieve the general funds of the local authority, and the general funds are made up of both local and Imperial grants. So I rather doubt myself, and I put in a careat as to whether this Amendment does not involve a question of privilege. Therefore, I hesitate rather to support this proposal, although upon its merits I approve of it.
Amendment negatived.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he felt that he had trespassed a good deal upon their Lorships' attention during the Committee satge of this Bill, and he was afraid that unless he was able to persuade His Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, it might still be his duty to divide the House If so, he hoped it would be the last time upon this stage that he should have thus to take up their time. This Amendment, to his mind, was a very important one. It was that they should strike out Clause 14 altogether, abd that they should insert the following new Clause:—
"All educational endwments. which before the passing of this Act were being used for the
834
purposes fo elementary education, shall be reserved for the benefit of meritorious children in the parish or district, and shall be dealt with by scheme to be drawn up by the Board of Education, in consulatation with the laocal education authority, 'and laid before Parliament in the usual way."
In his own poor diocese there was no less a sum than something between£2,000 and £3,000 a year, which was being used for these purposes, and those endowments he desired to see reserved. for the purposes he had indicated. He felt very strongly indeed upon this point. He felt that it was a matter of great importance that they should endeavour in this respect to hold on to the intentions of those generous donors and patrons who had given these benefaction. He did not dispute the power of the House to deal with benefactions of this kind but what he did say was that, under the circumstances, to do this would be both ungenerous and unwise. That was his point. He ventured the other day to say that if a Radical Government had introduced into Parliament any such proposal as this, both Houses of Parliament would have rung with denunciations of it. It would have been said on almost all these Benches again and again, that they were laying sacrilegious hands on the gifts of those pious founders, and that they ought to reserve those gifts for the classes of persons for whose benefit they were intended, and not appropriate them for the benefit of an entirely different class of persons. Feeling deeply as he did about this questioh, he was conscious that he might have spoken strongly the other day, and last night, in the very striking speech of the noble Lord Chancellor, he seemed to hear a strong and paerfervid rebuke for having used the strong language which he made the strpmg language which he made use of upon that occasion. That being so, he desired to recall to the House the actual words he used. He said on that occasion that if they appropriated endowments as under this Clause, they would be doing a damage to the reputation of the Church of England. They would be doing it in this way, that they would be exposing themselves to the remark that would certainly be made outside, that

835
they were adopting a policy which might be described as—
" The good old rule,
, the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can."
He went on, perhaps in the heat of the argument, to say that this was a plan which, in the vernacular, in the language of the man in the street in Bethnal Green or anywhere else, was not uncommonly described as a "policy of grab." To that description he understood that the noble and learned Earl took objection. Well, perhaps he ought not to have introduced any of those vernacular phrases, and he apologised, but he could not withdraw the substance of his remarks. He desired, however, to say that he had no intention of attributing, either to the Government or to any portion of the Church which he served, anything like a deliberate and conscious pursuit of this policy which was so described, but he thought that they exposed themselves to such a description of it from the enemy outside, and he thought it was well to think of that.Fas est et ab hoste doceri, and their action was certain to be so described by the ordinary person in ordinary society. If he did not attribute any blame, or wish to indicate that either the Government or the Church had consciously and deliberately pursued this policy of appropriating what, to his mind, should have been reserved for other purposes, he did say that they had drifted into it just as they drifted in public life into a great many things which they did not beforehand, and of set purpose, deliberately intend to do. He might illustrate this point by a very simple and familiar case. Some three or four years ago they all heard the noble Marquess of Salisbury—and it would have been a great pleasure to them if he had been present to join in this discussion—say that with regard to South Africa they desired neither land, nor gold, nor diamonds; but now they had drifted till they had taken the land, and they would be very glad to get more of the gold and diamonds if they could. That was just a case of political drifting, and that was just what had happened, as he understood it, with regard to this appropriation of endowments and some other things in this Bill. That was his point—that they had drifted into this position, and he hoped that by adopting
836
his Amendment in respect of the Clause as it stood, they might drift out of the position in which they found themselves. He most sincerely hoped that this would be the case, because he had a very strong desire in regard to this matter. As he had ventured to refer to the speech of the noble and learned Earl, he should like to be permitted to add one other word, and thank him for another portion of his speech, and that was for that portion which dealt with the zeal and the poverty of our clergy. He thanked the noble and learned Earl very sincerely for that, and he would go back to his own diocese with the feeling that, after listening to that part of his speech, and to some other speeches such as that delivered by the noble Viscount behind him, there was dawning a better day with regard to clerical incomes. He could not help feeling that certain noble Earls in this House, like Earl Egerton, Viscount Cross, and Lord Ashcombe and others, to whom they owed a debt of gratitude in connection with the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund, must have rejoiced to hear those eloquent speeches, and he desired to thank them for helping so far. But with regard to this Amendment, if the Church acquiesced in the Clause as it stood—and he thought it would not, because he had good hopes that a great many of his friends on the Episcopal Bench would vote with him on this point—but if it acquiesced it would do itself harm, because acquiescence in an appropriation of this kind was a direct contradiction of the whole policy of the Church in the past with regard to the poor, because the Church had always been the great friend and benefactor of the poor, and therefore he contended that they would be going against their natural policy if they accepted endowments of this kind which, to such a large extent, were intended for the benefit of the poor. Therefore he trusted and believed that his brethren would stand by him in this matter. Let them look at the Amendment for a moment. The Clause, as it stood in the Bill, took the benefactions of generous and pious founders and used them for an entirely different purpose. He did not dispute the legality of that proceeding, but he ventured to think that the generous and wise method to pursue in this matter was to look upon these benefactions as belonging to those districts

837
from which respectable tradesmen and others had gone out and made their fortunes, and who had been moved to make these benefactions in order to give opportunities to village children which they did not enjoy themselves. A great many of their benefactions had sprung up in that way, and he he'd that the generous and the wisest thing to do would be to reserve these benefactions, so that the class of children ten1 whom they were intended would still continue to enjoy, by virtue of them, benefits which they could not otherwise enjoy. That, he contended, contained the kernel of the whole matter, and so he would like to treat this as a part of the inalienable estate of the poorer classes, which he thought would be for the best interest of the nation at large. Let their Lordships observe the sort of inequality they would be guilty of if they allowed this Clause to stand as it now stood. In two parishes in his own diocese, which were equally poor, they had existing side by side this state of things, namely, that one had got probably endowments amounting to£20,£30,or£50 a year, while the other parish had not got one penny. Under the present circumstances they were bound to do exactly the same thing with regard to public education for both those parishes. Why should they not leave those benefactions for the benefit of those children for whom they were intended in order that those children might have opportunities that they could not otherwise have got? But there was another point. Those poor children would not be the beneficial res under this Bill if the Clause were left standing as it now stood. They would not enjoy the benefits of all those pious gifts which had been handed down to them. Who would enjoy, undcrthisBill, the£2.000 or£3,000 a year in his own diocese which had been left in this way? Why, to a great extent, the richer classes. He ventured to say that there was no body ui men in England who would be to such a large extent the bene-liciaires under these endowments as the Members of their Lordships' House. He knew that there was not a single Member of this House who would like to feel that he was putting into his own private pocket these benefactions of£5,£10,£20.or£70 a year by way relief from his rates which were intended for the meritorious and poor
838
children of his parish and neighbourhood. Therefore he had good hope that a great many of their Lordships would prefer his Amendment to the Clause as it stood. In conclusion, he would venture to add a word of thanks for their Lordships' kind indulgence, but, as he had said already more than once, he felt very 1 deeply and strongly on this subject. He did so because from the circumstances of his life, which had been very different from the circumstances of most of their Lordships' lives, he had been led to think a good deal about this subject for many reasons. Amongst others, he would not have had the privilege of standing in that House at all but for the benefits of endowments like these. Perhaps some of their Lordships would say that that would have been no great loss, but he would go one step further and say that they would never have had the venerable Primate in that House—and how delighted they would have been to have him there that night—but for the benefit of such endowments. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would meet with sympathetic and favourable consideration at their Lordships' hands, as he felt sure that it would do so if they realised to the full what a generous and wise act they would be doing.
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 14, and to insert the following new Clause instead thereof:—
" All educational endowments, which beforethe passing of this Act were being- used for the purposes of elementary education, shall liereserved for the benefit of meritorious children in the parish or district, and shall be dealtwith by scheme to be drawn up by the Board of Education in consultation with the local1 education authority and laid before Parliament in the usual way."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL
said he did not desire to speak of this as an appropriation at all. A number of these endowments were by the trust deeds confined to elementary schools, so that in that respect he could not regard them as being appropriated within the meaning of that Clause, the endowments having been applied, and properly applied, to relieve the charges in the form of subscriptions or otherwise by which the schools were maintained. They would not be in any way

839
transferred to the particular funds spoken about. But he quite agreed with the Bishop of Hereford that the course proposed would be a very wise, and not merely a generous, course in the present state of education. The one principle of this Bill which had overruled everything was that education should be "o-ordinated with a view of making the elementary schools a ladder from the bottom to the top which would enable all scholars to go from the elementary schools to the universities. Fifty years ago he was one of those who took part in the University Commission. That Commission thought it right to give up every kind of local scholarship for the purpose of promoting some more liberal kind of education. Some of them now thought that some of the local interest then sacrificed ought to be restored, and that local subscriptions ought to be reestablished for the purposes for which they used to be employed, but which at that time were not thought of so much importance as larger measures of higher education It might be thought that that was too big a change, but seeing that there was this fund standing as endowments, and regarded, therefore, in everybody's view as a separate fund with such contributions as came from the taxes and the rates, he thought the endowment fund should have some special use given to it, and not be swamped in the general funds.
LORD BUEGHCLEREsaid the Clause of the Government touched the same peculiar class of endowments of which he had already spoken, and it appeared that he was perfectly correct in what he had stated with regard to those endowments. The noble Duke had said that voluntary schools were not affected by this provision—that this only concerned public elementary schools for which no provision has been made—namely, non-voluntary schools. He (Lord Burghclere) i was referring to a peculiar class of endowments which were transferred under Clause 23 of the Act of 1870, and which therefore did not come under this provision.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid it would clear the atmosphere a little if the noble Duke would answer a concrete case which he would put. An ancestress of his, Mary
The Lord Bishop of Southwell.
Lister and her husband, had endowed i a certain village school with property i which now produced£43 a year. The school wasa very small one, costing only£50 a year; therefore only£7 was left for private subscriptions in order to get the grant. It was a good school, and had always got the grant.He asked what became of the money of Mary Lister and her husband under this Bill? The money was devoted to the education of children. Would that £43 a year have to be pooled? The village would be rated to the county like other folk, and he supposed the£43 would be thrown into the general melting-pot. He did not object, but as a matter of fact it would be pooled for the good of of the whole district. That, it seemed to him, was to a great extent defeating the objects of the "pious founder."
*THE EARL or HALSBCJRYsaid one mode of discussing this question with clearness was to see what the Clause was in respect of which the Amendment was, moved. The noble Lord Lord Burghclere had apparently not read the Clause with sufficient clearness, probably because he had been diverted by the somewhat discursive observations of the right rev. Prelate. The Clause began—
" Nothing in this Act shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof: provided that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment the income thereof innst lie applied in whole or in part for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the local education-authority, the whole uf the income or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall be paid to. that authority, and in case part only of such income must be so applied, and there is nc provision under the said trusts or provisions for determining the amount which represents that part, the amount shall be determined in. case of difference between the parties concerned by the Board of Education."
That was perfectly plain—that for which the money was given being now supplied by the local education authority, the endowment would be transferred to that authority; and so far from there being an abandonment of anything provided by this pious ancestress, the local authority now came in and supplied it. It was really another mode of doing the same thing. With reference to the speech of the right rev. Prelate, it was not worth while to recur to their former debates, but he was very glad indeed to

841
recognise that the right rev. Prelate did not mean what his words on a former coeasion seemed to imply. Nothing could be more agreeable than to hear that when the right rev. Prelate said that the policy of grab was bad enough in China and Africa, but that when he found it in the Church of Christ it was intolerable, what he meant to say was that the attitude of the Church might expose the Church to the unjust suspicion of adopting the policy of grab; he was very glad indeed to have that explanation.
EARL CAERINGTON,referring to Humberton's Charity in Lincolnshire, understood that that charity would go entirely to the purposes to which it was now devoted, and no part of it would be pooled.
*THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is given to the credit of that parish.
EARL CARRINGTON: Entirely for the purposes of the parish?
*THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Entirely.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid if there had been a provision that where a school had an endowment the local authority should not undertake the whole maintenance, but only so far as the endowment was insufficient, it might be said that the endowment was still carrying on the work of education, although practically the result would be the same; but in cases where the endowment was left for -education nothing would be done for education that would not lie done if it did not exist. It would only relieve the burden on the ratepayers, which was not the object contemplated by the founder. He did not understand the meaning of the words in the Amendment "shall be reserved for the benefit." Presumably that referred to educational benefits. In many cases the intention of the founder was not so much to benefit elementary higher education generally as to give an opportunity for more education for children of special talent among the poor. That was an idea that took root much earlier than ideas of general education, and he imagined that a very large number of endowments which had been applied to elementary education had really been so applied by an abuse of the original intention of the founder. On these
842
grounds, though he had been unable to agree with him on other parts of the Bill, he would be bound to support the right rev. Prelate if he pressed the Amendment to a division.
*EARL SPENCER: The noble and learned Lord, referring to the case put by Lord Ribblesdale, said that the position of the parish with regard to Mary Lister's fund would be practically the same, because, although the£43 a year was spent on education, it would go in aid of the rates of the parish. But surely that is not the case. The £43 will go to relieve the ratepayers all over the county.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: By sub-Section 2 it is given to the overseers of the parish.
EARL SPENCER: It certainly appears to me that it would relieve the whole of the rates of the county, and not the particular parish; I merely rose to make the position clear. I entirely agree with the right rev. Prelate on this matter, but I am afraid that I cannot vote with him, because, though the noble Duke quoted what I said the other flay about the House of Commons being capable of taking care of itself, I do not like to put the House of Lords in the position of infringing the privileges of the other House; I think such a position is undignified, and I am clearly of opinion that this comes within the privileges of the other House. Therefore, although I entirely agree with this proposal, I shall riot feel myself able to vote for it.
*The EARL OF HALSBURY: Perhaps I may read the Sub-Section, because I think there is a misapprehension about it—
"Any money arising from an endowment and paid to a County Council for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the Council, shall be credited by the Council in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of Part 3 of this Act, in the parish or parishes which in the opinion of the Council are served by the school for the purposes of which the sum is paid, or if the Council so direct shall be paid to the overseers of the parish or parishes in the proportions directed by the Council, and applied by the over.-eers in aid of the poor rate levied in the parish."
On Question, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 15:—
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD, in moving the next Amendment, said he need not trouble the House with any arguments beyond this, that while he had considerable sympathy with the Clause which reserved to the owners of school buildings the rent of the schoolhouse—for there was a good deal to be said for reserving that rent, because it was part of the salary of the masters, and the salary of the masters was given over to the authorities responsible for the maintenance—he also had sympathy with the contention that only structural repairs should remain a burden on the owners of the buildings, because the other repairs had hitherto been included in what was known as Form 9 of the Returns of the Education Department, and therefore had been included in the maintenance expenses of the school. In as much as the public had taken over the expense of maintenance, it was reasonable that they should take over the expense under Form 9. He, however, saw no similar grounds for this reservation, and therefore he would be glad if it could be dropped, because he held that the Church ought not to claim anything beyond what she had a definite title to.
Amendment moved—
" In page 9,line 11, to leave out from ' pay' to the end of the Clause, and insert ' all such fees to the local education authority in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of tins Act.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid there were certain facts with reference to school fees which ought to be brought before the House. If this Amendment were carried the schools which would most suffer would be the Wesleyan schools, and those, he was afraid, had but few representatives in this House. From a letter from one of His Majesty's counsel which appeared in Mondays' Times, it appeared that out of 458 Wesleyan schools fees were taken in 307, or over 60 per cent, of such schools, and the total sum produced was £29,981, or a payment of 4s. 81/2d, per child per annum. The next class of schools to suffer would be the British i schoolsd. The British schools, and other schools which are called miscellaneous when grouped together, had again but
844
few representatives in this House. Out of 1,052 British and miscellaneous schools school fees are taken in 330, or 31 percent., the total sum received being £31 161, or 2s.101/4d. per child per annum. Compared with these bodies the Church of England has received a very small sum in proportion. Out of the total of 11,731 Church of England schools fees are only taken in 1,750; that is, about 15 per cent., and the total amount received by the Church of England from such fees is £121,315, giving an annual payment of only Is.31/2d. per child in every school-pence paying school. The Roman Catholic schools had a smaller proportion still. Out of 1,053 Roman Catholic schools pence are taken in 113, that is only 9 per cent, of the whole number, the total sum produced being £7,163, or only 63/4d. per child per annum. The Church of England would lose a. small sum. Suppose that the fees were divided, and went half to the managers and half to the local authorities, the Church of England would receive under the Bill £60,500supposing the rate of fees in the future to be what it had been in the past. Therefore the loss to the Church of England, if that sum were divided amongst all the counties of England would be a very small loss compared with that of Wesleyan and British schools. He thought a word ought to be said on behalf of these Wesleyan and British schools, and that it should be pointed out that if this Amendment were carried it would hit these schools very hard indeed. Another point was this. The payment for fees had been gradually reduced. In the year 1897 there were 735,142 fee-paying scholars;there had been a gradual reduction every year; next year it was 706,000, the next 670,000, the next 649,000, the next 644,000. There was a Clause in this Bill by which the local authorities would be able to cease these fees altogether if they chose. Undoubtedly, therefore, there would be a very considerable reduction, and the sums ' hitherto received under the head of fees would, in years to come, be very much smaller than they had been in the past. It had been stated twice by the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, that these fees were considered a considerable asset—as though the Church of England were a Corporation which was able to

845
pool all the receipts for fees and endowments, and as though it were not necessary, therefore, to raise any large sum by subscriptions for the purposes for which the managers would have to raise funds. He would remind the House that the fees which would be returned under this Bill to the managers were strictly ear-marked for the schools from which those fees were taken. They could not be pooled for general purposes; they were simply for the schools and parishes concerned. Therefore the asset, whatever it might be, would be a very small asset. He would be unable to agree with the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:—
Amendment made—
" In page 9, line 21 after ' managers,' to insert ' or as to control by the local education authority.' "—(The Lord President.)
EARL CARRINGTON: In moving the rejection of this Clause I need not retain the House while I state my reasons. The Clause relates to schools attached to institutions, and runs as follows:—
" The local education authority may maintain, as a public elementary school under the provisions of this Act, but shall not be required so to maintain any Marine school, or any school which is part of, or is held in the premises of, any institution in which children are boarded, but their refusal to maintain such a school shall not render the school incapable of receiving a Parliamentary grant, nor shall the school, if not so maintained, be subject to the provisions of this Act as to the appointment of managers."
Then will follow the words just added on the motion of the noble Duke. As regards Marine schools, there are only five of them in existence;they are looked after by special legislation, and they are quite able to take care of themselves, and there is no earthly reason, as far as I am informed, why these marine schools should have been brought within the provisions of the Act. Then there is Greenwich Hospital, with its great endowment of £7,000 a year, and there are one or two others in the same category. The House knows well that this Clause was rushed in in another
846
place at the very last moment and the House was informed that this Clause was to protect local authorities against the schools composed of children collected from all parts' of the kingdom. To save time, I would like to ask the noble Duke a question, to which he can answer yes or no—whether these schools will be subject to all the conditions imposed on non-provided schools.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I believe so.
EARL CARRINGTON: This Clause refers to orphanages and institutions, and they include those semi-industrial schools to which laundries are attached, and which were intended to make very considerable profit. I do not think that that is the kind of school that ought to come under the provisions of the Act. The Marine schools are well provided for already. I have been told that those who manage these industrial schools say they do not intend that they shall be brought under the Act in any way. How that may be I have no means of knowing, but I may quote the words of the Lord Bishop of Manchester the other night when he stated that what people could do they would probably do, and therefore under these circumstances I beg to move the omission of Clause 16.
Amendment moved,—
"To leave out Clause 16."—(Earl Carrington.)
*EARL SPENCER: I sympathise to a great extent with what Lord Carririgton has said, but I am not quite sure as to what the meaning of the Clause is. I would like to ask what is meant by "Marine schools." I rather think that that applies to some schools which were put under the Education Board when I had the honour to be in the place of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Selborne). We had a class of schools at Gosport and other places which were paid for out of the Admiralty Vote, and were directly under the management of the Admiralty. The scholars were the children of Marines. I do not know whether this word "marine" applies to them. These schools were good schools, and I thought, and the Board that I had the honour to preside over thought, that they would be

847
very much better managed if put under the education inspectors and received the Government grant in the ordinary way, and that was done. I should be rather sorry if anything could interfere with the present management of these schools. I have a sort of feeling that already a great many of the higher schools in large towns have received grants for voluntary purposes and become primary schools, and that they are included also. I confess that I have some lurking feeling in favour of those schools, and I am certainly not at all strongly impressed with the desirability of omitting this Clause.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (the Earl of SELBORNE): The schools referred to here as "Marine schools" are Royal Marine schools, and they have no connection with the Greenwich Hospital or the Greenwich Hospital lunds. The Board of which the noble Earl was First Lord introduced the change in our administration which he has described to the House. The change has worked most admirably, and the present Board only desire to preserve that system.
LORD NELSON: I should be very sorry if these schools were removed from the Bill, because we have a similar school, the Royal Patriotic Asylum, which has all the grants that an elementary school would get. I do not know what would happen to that school if any alteration were made. For many years we have been receiving the grant, and have received from His Majesty's Inspectors great credit for the high level at which we are teaching the children.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend, Lord Selborne, has stated, in reply to the noble Earl, what these Marine schools are. I am not sure whether he stated that while the Admiralty contributes the amount required to defray their expenditure, in addition to the annual and fee grants, a proportion of their expenditure is defrayed by the Education Department, and that is an arrangement which it is proposed to continue. As the schools, however, do not serve any local needs it would be inequitable to compel the locality to maintain them. If this Clause had not been inserted in the Bill the Education
Earl Spencer.
848
Department would no longer have contributed to the support of these schools. There is very much the same reason for treating in the same way the class of schools referred to in the Bill. These are boarding institutions, and the children in them are of the same class as those that attend other elementary schools; therefore there is no reason why they should not receive the annual grant of the Education Department like other elementary schools; but, as they do not necessarily benefit the children of any particular locality, it would be unfair to compel the locality to maintain them as if they were ordinary elementary schools.
EARL CARRINGTON: I would like to repeat my question. Are these schools going to be subject to all the conditions imposed on non-provided schools? That is rather an interesting question, and I should like to get an answer.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If they receive rate aid.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Their Lordships adjourned at Eight of the clock and resumed at Nine.
Clause 18:—
*LORD COLERIDGE*LORD COLERIDGE, in moving to omit the words in sub-Section (2), "unless in the case of a county, the Council shall otherwise determine," said: I have some hope that the Government will look with favour upon this Amendment. I propose to insure that the educat on committee appointed by the County Council shall have a majority of its members upon that committee. 1 do not quite understand why there is an important difference made in the case of the County Council and that of the Council of a County Borough, or the Council of a Borough of 10,000, or the Council of an Urban District; because in those cases, as I understand the Bill, the majority of the education committee will have to be composed of the majority of the Council appointed, while in the sole instance of the County Council it is

849
provided that that is not necessary unless the County Council so determine. I understand that originally the Bill did not contain those words, and that they were put in on Report by Sir William Anson. It is rather important to draw attention to the position of these education committees. It was at first thought that the education committee would be paramount, because the Bill, as it was originally drawn, said that the County Council should "act through" the education committee. It was then thought advisable to change those words into the word "establish"; the County Council is now to "establish an education committee." "Establish" is a different word from "appoint," which is the usual word. I should like to know from the Government whether they agree with the view I hold, that in consequence of the word "establish," the education committee will have very large powers in the matter. It is quite true that they will not have powers of rating, but with the exception of that they will practically dominate the education of the committees. Under those circumstances it does seem an extraordinary thing that the rule should provide that in all cases the majority shall be members of the Council, except in the case of the County Council. These education committees have got to start the thing, and the County Council is the only body with any representative authority. I can quite understand that, this work being novel and some what burdensome, it may be that members of the County Council may be desirous of avoiding, reasonably, the burden placed upon them by Parliament, and they may seek to avoid being "placed on the education committees; and we may very well have the education committee with a very small minority, and, so far as the Bill is concerned, it may be possible that there may be no members of the County Council on the committee. That was admitted by the Attorney General in the House of Commons. I do not say it will happen—possibly it will not; but at any rate, there is no assurance in the Bill that there will be any members of the County Council on the committee. It seems to me that the Government ought to meet that in the same way. I understand that the Amendment I'now move is
850
supported by my noble friend, Lord North brook, on behalf of the County Councils' Association. I cannot see that it will do the slightest harm, and I hope it will be accepted by the noble Duke.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 13, to leave out from 'Council' to the end of the paragraph."—(The. Lord Coleridge.)
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble and learned Lord said that he thought it might be possible that the County Councils would desire to support the proviso that, with their consent, the Education Committee need not contain a majority of the Council. The history of what has taken place in this matter will satisfy your Lordships that there is no foundation for that idea. In the original Bill, as introduced by His Majesty's Government, there was absolutely no representation at all in respect of the administration of education. There was representation to the extent that the County Councils (who are representative bodies) possessed the rating power—they had to supply the money; but in respect of the whole administration of education from the top to the bottom of the Bill as introduced, there was no representation of the people at all. That matter was considered by the County Councils' Association at the general meeting in May last, and we came to the unanimous conclusion that our support of the Bill was to beon the condition that the education committee should have a majority of members of the Council who appointed it. Now, we have supported the Government Bill loyally, and I certainly am surprised that at the last moment, on Report in the other House, the County Council are put in the position of having the power of appointing an education committee which shall not contain a majority of their number. For some reason of which I am quite unaware, on the Report stage the boroughs—I suppose they had more influence in the other House than the counties—had this power taken away from them. The boroughs did not want the power of being able to appoint education committees not containing a majority of their number. But, so far from there being any desire on the part of the County Councils of England that this proviso should remain in the Bill, it

851
is our great desire that it shall be omitted. I consider that the proviso itself is objectionable on principle, for this reason: there should be a representative element in the administration of education, and the proviso as it now stands enables any County Council to administer education without any representative element. I know very well, as does everyone who has had anything to do with County Councils, that the whole business of education must be carried on by the education committees. The Councils have power to delegate to those committees the whole of the business of education, with the exception of supplying the money. Therefore, if this proviso remains in the Bill, the whole of the administration of education throughout the country may be carried on—in counties— without any representative element. I would like to put to the Government what they have done by inserting this proviso. They have enabled anyone who objects to the Bill to say, and truly say, that, with this proviso in the Bill, there is power to carry on the administration of education without any representative element. In the first place, the County Councils do not want this proviso; secondly, it is wrong in principle; and thirdly, it would be immensely to the advantage of the Government, as a matter of argument, to omit the proviso.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: It is rather unfortunate that, for the second time in these debates, I find myself in disagreement with the noble Earl who has just sat down. Speaking only my own private opinion, I should like to advance one argument against what he has said. I suppose it would be an extreme case—one which would practically never occur—where a County Council would appoint a committee without a single county councillor upon it. What this proviso allows is that the personal interest which county councillors have in the education committees should be comparatively slight. One of the great dangers, as it seems to me, of the provisions of this Bill, is that County Council elections will or may be conducted upon educational and denominational questions, which I think will introduce an element of controversy into County Council elections that may be
Earl of Northbrook
852
very mischievous. Further, we shail probably not get on the Councils the right men; instead of men who are good upon the subject of roads, bridges, sanitation, and so forth, we may have men who are just educationists. Therefore, if this Bill is to work well, I should have thought it wise to give County Councils at any rate the power of so far diminishing the direct interest which individual candidates may have in getting on the Council by enabling the Councils to elect a committee with a small number, comparatively, of councillors upon them. The noble Earl has pointed out that if county councillors are not properly represented on these committees, practically the committees will not be representative of the ratepayers. I would suggest that although that is perhaps technically correct, it is really not so. Practically, the County Council are paramount over these education committees; they must act through them, but they are paramount over them. It is true they have the liberty to delegate their powers to the committees, but they are not compelled to do so, and if the education committee did not properly represent the views of the Council (that Council being representative of the ratepayers), I am certain that the Council would take good care that the committee adopted their views or were replaced by those who would do so. I think the other danger is very much greater— that you will have County Council elections too much influenced by educational questions, and that you will not get the right men on the Councils. I therefore trust that the Government will not give way on this subject. I do not know whether I am in order now, or whether it should come up on an Amendment of my own later on, but I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord who has moved this Amendment, What is the particular reason why this power is confined to the County Council, or, rather—I would put it in the opposite way—why should not the Borough Councils and Urban Councils be allowed the same liberty of choosing whether they will have a majority of their own members on these committees? Do the words in this paragraph—
"(a) Unless in the case of a county, the Council shall otherwise determine,"

853
govern the preceding words or paragraph, or not? In other words, is a County Council at liberty, if it chooses not, to appoint a majority of the committee, as well as not to make that majority members of the Council; or is it confined to appointing at least a majority? That is not clear as it stands, and I suggest that the matter should be dealt with, either now or on Report.
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel very strongly on this matter, which is one in which I take the greatest interest. I have always maintained that one of the blots in the Bill was this. The Government have said that the ratepayers were represented by the County Council, who were an elective body, and therefore that answered what we consider a strong constitutional point—namely, the necessity that when the rating power existed in one body the governing body should be there also. But I say that that is not the case in practice; that the tendency of the Bill as drawn was to push away from the actual representative bodies, the County Councils, the duty of conducting and controlling education, by devolving that upon a committee of their own. That is why I have always said that, owing to the fact that the County Council will have a consultative body of their own members, this representation of the ratepayers on the County Councils is delusive and a sham. My belief is this: I am speaking particularly of a rural County Council, to which my noble friend's Amendment specially refers. I have said before that these County Councils govern districts of enormous area. The members of the committees of the County Council come from a very great distance. I know in my own county I am always surprised at the regularity with which county councillors attend the committees and the Council of my county from a great distance. But I assure your Lordships that they have very great difficulty, and the county councillors are put to very great exertion and strain and expenditure, by having continually to come up to the centre to deal with the various matters that now coinc before the County Council. That strain and difficulty will be enormously increased by this great work of education being put upon them. What will they do? They will adopt the power which these words give them, and will relieve
854
this strain upon them by delegating their powers to a consultative committee. That, to my mind, is a very serious thing. I attach immense importance to the body that is to be the educational authority, and to have the practical working and administration of the education in a county, being representative of the ratepayers. If the County Council delegate these powers, practically the management and control of education will be in the hands, not of real representatives, but of delegates of the real representatives—namely, the County Council. I object to this entirely. I believe it will be doing great harm to education in the country, and I believe that in order to get thorough education in the country it is of the utmost importance that all the ratepayers and representatives in the county should take a deep interest in the matter, which interest cannot be stimulated more than by their being made the electors of a representative body. I believe the reason why this exception has been put in is on account of the difficulty which, no doubt, will be thrown on County Councils by this extra work. At the same time, I feel so strongly about it that I very much object to this plan, and I think it most important that the same limitation should be put on the rural County Councils as is now put on the boroughs—namely, that they must elect a majority of their own members on the education committee. The noble Duke who spoke last referred to County Council elections. I sincerely hope that County Council elections will not turn on educational grounds. I have always rejoiced very much at the absence of sharp Party lines in the election of County Councils, and I am very much afraid that the Bill as it now stands in many respects will overturn that happy state of things, and that there will be considerable acrimony and excitement in the elections, because the various parties, actuated, I am sorry to say, by religious feelings, will try to get possession of the County Council in order to promote their own views. I regret that very much indeed; but I feel very strongly that if my noble friend's Amendment is carried some of these difficulties may be overcome, and that if the County Councils are obliged to put a majority of their own representatives on these Committees, some of the difficulties referred to may be met. Though I object, as your LordshipS know, to the general principles of the Bill, I

855
should sincerely rejoice if His Majesty's Government would so far alter it in this respect, and regard the necessity of putting on rural County Councils the same obligation as they have put on the county boroughs, by insisting that on the education committees the majority shall be members of the County Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYAt the present moment, except in the case of a County Council, the majority of the education committee must be members of the Council. Now, the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite would involve that the majority of the Committee in the case of a County Council also should be members of the Council. The Bill as it originally stood only referred to the Council appointing the majority of the committee. The noble and learned Lord is quite correct when he says that my hon. friend Sir William Anson, in the House of Commons, proposed that the majority should also be members of the Council unless the Council otherwise determined. At the same time, however, I cannot but think that, while I am defending this Clause, we should consider the various circumstances of the local authorities of the country, and, therefore, it would be unwise to make any hard and fast declaration such as would be made if this Amendment were carried. As far as I can judge from the speeches of the two noble Lords who have spoken, the County Councils which they represent as chairmen do not seem to have arrived at the same conclusion.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I may be allowed to explain that I was not speaking for my County Council at all; I was only expressing my individual opinions.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: What I said was that at a meeting of the County Councils Association it was determined that the support given to the Bill should be on condition that the education committee should be composed in the majority of members of the Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl speaks undoubtedly with authority; but at the present moment we are informed that there are County Councils who think that it would be impossible to carry on the work thrown upon them
856
by this Bill if they are required to have a majority of their own members on the Committee.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Has the noble Marquess any objection to telling us the names of those County Councils?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know that I can give the names, but that is the information given to the Government.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My impression is that the whole of the counties agreed to this Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I will not pit my authority against that of the noble Earl, but the Government are under the belief that the County Councils, as a whole, would not altogether approve of this Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite. There is one word I should like to say with regard to what the noble and learned Lord said. He seems to think that the education committee would dominate the situation. I question that. The Council can act absolutely as it pleases, and can override or can ignore the declarations of the committee if it chooses.
EARL SPENCER: It can, but it will not.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is not for the Government to say what they can or will do, but they can override or ignore the decisions of the committee if they choose. My noble friend Lord Northbrook, asked why the boroughs are dealt with separately from the counties. My noble friend knows that the areas dealt with by the boroughs are very much more compact and much easier to deal with than those over which the County Councils preside. Without saying any more, I think I am justified, in spite of what the noble Lords who represent County Councils say, in asking your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the noble Earl (Northbrook) stated the case for his Amendment extremely clearly and with great force. My noble friend on behalf of the County Councils Association stated that the County Councils of England were in favour of this Amendment. The noble Marquess opposite was

857
challenged to say what were the Councils chat objected, and he found himself absolutely unable to reply. The noble Marquess argued that the reason the County Councils should be excepted rom the Bill is that the counties are vider districts, and that there is a difficulty in the members getting about the county, and therefore it would be lesirable to get outsiders to serve on these committees. I do not think that is a very sound argument. It seems to one it would be easy to find in any County Council a certain number of suitable persons who would be able to attend to this particular work. More ever, I would point out that in another largely responsible for any difficulty which arises upon this head. In another place the Government refused to allow the necessary travelling expenses of members of these committees. I think hat that was a most reasonable proposal. It seems to me that when members of the Council are travelling about the county doing the work of the committees and of the Council, it is a seasonalbe thing to expect that their expenses should be paid, at least, their out-of-pocket expenses. The noble Duke said he was afraid that if the last words of this paragraph were omitted it would cause the County Council selections to turn largely on the question of education. I do not see how that would be he cases if these words were omitted more than it is under the present circumstances. After all, any given county Council would not have to appoint a very large number of members to serve on these committees. If my noble friend sesires to see educational experts and thers seving on the committees, the emaining sub-Sections of this Clause give glenty of opportunity for that. Many of us on this side of the House feel that it is a this particular direction that the Bill us greatly wanting, and that by the profesions of this Clause the representation of the education committees is made exceedingly and unnecessarily indirect. We believe it is desirable that for the important work of the County Councils he representation should be direct, and chat the men who have to perform that work should be brought into direct touch with the electors of the county. For
858
these reasons, I very strongly support the Amendment of my noble and learned friend.
*LORD HARRIS: The noble Earl opposite said that all the members of the County Councils' Association had agreed in May that majority of the education committee should be memners of the Council.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I said that that was the condition on which the Association supported the Government Bill.
*LORD HARRIS: I suppose if that was a unanimous vote, the representative of my own county must have voted for it; but I think that subsequent considerations have altered the opinions of that member, for I am given to understand that the scheme that is being prepared in my county does not contemplate anything like one committee, but rather eighteen or twenty committees. If there are to be anything like that number, it will obviously be impossible for the County Concil to put on to such a number of committees a majority of their own members. Under those circumstsnces, I think it is wiser to have that elasticity in the Clause which the Government have provided, and which is so necessary for the working of an Act which at the best is not very easy to caryy into effect.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I may point out that the sixth sub-Section of the first schedule provides—
" That an education committee may, subject to any directions of the Council, appoint such and so many sub-committees, consisting either wholly or partly of members of the committee, as the committee thiks fit."
Therefore the difficulty my noble friend suggests could not arise.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not quite understand why the noble Lords opposite attach so much importance to this Amendment. If the County Councils are as unanimous as Lord Northbrook thinks, they will have nothing whatever to do but to appoint on each of their committees a majority of their own members. I have not the smallest doubt that my noble friend, who speaks with so much authority as the chairman of the County

859
Councils' Association, correctly represents to us the feeling which existed in that body when the subject was discussed in the summer of the present year, but undoubtedly we have received—not, I admit, officially, but wo have received—from county members with whom many members of the Government are in constant communication, representations that in some counties, at all events, very great difficulty will be experienced in constituting these committees, if we insist upon a majority of the members of the committees being members of the Council. I am told, for instance—I am not absolutely certain of the fact—that a representation has been received from the county of Cornwall, which is a very large county, and where the distances are very great, that that Council must appoint, not one committee, but two committees, dividing the county into two areas, and that it would be absolutely impossible under the conditions sought to be imposed upon them to appoint those two committees. The principle of the Bill, and what we should desire, is that in all these local authorities the popularly-elected representatives

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E (L. Chancellor.)

Stamford, E.

Braye,L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Colchester, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Waldegrave, E.[Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Wellington, D.

Dunmore, L. (V. Doune)

Churchill, V.[Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Erskine, L.

Camden, M.

Falmouth, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Hertford, M.

Halifax, V.

Forester, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff. V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Winchester, M.

Harris, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Abingdon, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Iveagh, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ely, L, Bp.

Kenyon, L.

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

Liehfield, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Komtore.)

Feversham, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Ludlow, L.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Down-shire.)

Southwell, L. Bp.

Middleton, L. North, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Liehtield, E.

Ashborune, L.

Redesdale, L.

Londes borough, E.

Balfour, L.

Rowton, L.

Nelson, E.

Barrymore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Seaton, L.

Romney, E.

Belper, L.

Wimborne, L.

Selborne, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camperdown, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Burghclere, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Morley, E.

Coleridge, L. [Teller.]

Northbrook, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Corkand Orrcry.)

Denman, L.

should be in the majority, and where this can undoubtedly be done without difficulty and without inconvenience, as in the case of the boroughs, we insists, and we propose to c ontinue to insist, on the majority consisting of popularly-elected members. Bus the case of couties is evidently very diferent, and although I quite admit that it may be taken to be an argumenast, so far as it goes, against this Bill, we are informed, and we think that it is a possibility, that County Councils may have great difficulty in constituting the committees they desire if this clasticity is denied them. County Councils, I think, are bodies of sufficient authority and sufficient intelligence to be entrusted with the composition of their committees, and if the Councils are so unanimous as the noble Lords opposite think they are on this subject, I do not see why you cannot leave it to constitute their committees entirely or mainly out of the members of their own body.
On Question "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:— Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 20.

Herries, L.

Reay, L.

Sudley, L. (E.Arran.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ribbesdale, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Wenlock, L.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Duke if he will answer the question I put a short time ago—whether the words at the end of this paragraph, "unless in the case of a county, the Council shall otherwise determine," govern both parts of the preceding sentence. Do the former words mean that the option is given both to appoint a majority simply, and to appoint a majority who shall be members of the Council?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the words just proposed to be left out will now only apply to the last part of the paragraph—that the majority need not be members of the committee.
THE DUKE OK NORTHUMBERLAND: There is some doubt about it, to the uninitiated, at any rate, and I venture to suggest that if the noble Duke's interpretation is the right one, as no doubt it is, the paragraph should run—
" For the appointment by the Council of atleast a majority of the committee who, unless in the case of a county the Council shall otherwise determine, shall also be members of the Council."
Perhaps the noble Duke will consider that on the Report stage.
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: I hope, my Lords, that I may be able to mollify the hitherto adamantine front of the noble Duke, and persuade him to accept the Amendment I now rise to move. At the least, I can claim for it that it is purely and simply educational, and that it takes us out of that dreary waste of religion and local government in which we have been sojourning so long. I am very mindful of the kind and salutary lecture which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack read me just now, and I quite admit that as laymen we are perhaps too willing to accept a sort of Lord Dundreary-ish attitude towards the drafting of a Bill, and not take enough trouble to get at it exactly. However, apart from any knowledge of drafting English, I think I can make no mistake as to the meaning of this Clause. Apparently, "nomination" means that 'he persons referred to here must be
862
accepted by the County Council. The language is quite express. It says the scheme '; shall provide for the appointment by the Council on the nomination '; that is to say, the council are to have no option in the matter. These appointed nominees are to be the creation and the creatures of "other bodies' I suppose those other bodies are the Voluntary Schools Associations; or in the County Council of Middlesex they may be the Governors of Harrow, or, for anything in the Bill, they may be the College of Cardinals. As far as lam concerned, the area of choice cannot be too broad to please me: I should be willing even to welcome the appointment of the Agnostic squire in "Robert Ellesmere." It seems to me that the "religious atmosphere cannot be claimed for purely secular matters. Was it not said of a certain doctor of divinity by Porson—" that he would have been a great Greek scholar if he had not fuddled his brains with theology!" I object to the inflexible obligation this Clause places on the County Council; and my Amendment proposes to give the Council what I claim is the very modest privilege of refusing to accept (if you like, without giving any reasons) some of the gentlemen who may be nominated by the "other bodies." I freely admit the educational importance and value of this Clause as a whole (it is for that reason, as I said just now, a sort of bird of paradise in these discussions), and I especially press this Amendment, having regard to tin? determination of the Government, expressed by the Prime Minister in the other House and by the noble Duke in this House, that the local authority is to be in the true sense of the word the arbiter of educational matters in this country. I pause here to express my surprise at the noble Duke (Northumberland) saying that he is afraid that the county councillors of th future, instead of being the good old-fashioned gentlemen, versed in highway and drainage lore, and so on, will be men elected altogether on the education ticket, and that: County Councils will comprise much more educationists than any thing else. Now that the whole of the education of the country is to

863
be in the hands of the County Councils, I rather hope that the noble Duke is right; but, if he is right, that strengthens my contention, that it is very little to ask that these people who are to undertake the administration of education should not be obliged to accept, whether they like it or not, nominees from other bodies, but should be given the right which the word '' "recommendation" in place of the word "nomination" would give them, to refuse to accept such nominees if they could find better men. I trust the Government will give my Amendment favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 16, to leave out 'nomination' and insert 'recommendation'"—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid that on this occasion I shall be obliged to maintain what my noble friend called my adamantine front; and decline to accept the Amendment. As they are closely connected, I may, perhaps, deal at the same time with this Amendment and that of the noble Earl (Northbrook)—[To leave out "on the nomination," and insert "from among the nominees"]. I confess that, of the two, the latter seems the less objectionable form, but I do not think it possible for us to accept either Amendment. We cannot yet know exactly how these schemes will be framed. They will have to be framed in the first instance, by the County Councils or Borough Councils themselves, and then elaborated with the assistance of the Education Department; but we hope that they will contain, perhaps among other elements, both I those elements which were mentioned by the noble Lord; we hope that they will contain provision for persons nominated by Associations of Schools, or at any rate provide for the representation of schools in some other manner; and also, we certainly expect and hope, that they will contain provisions for the nomination by educational institutions such as the University Colleges, which are in the area of the authority, and perhaps by some of the great public schools. I think the members of the committee thus nominated would be found to be of extreme value. But it is not
864
right, I think, to ask that bodies such as those I have mentioned should be asked to submit to the County Council a list of nominees, from whom the Council should select any they thought fit, or, perhaps, none at alL I think it is extremely desirable that the power of actual nomination by bodies of that sort should be contained in the scheme. It is no new principle. In schemes which have been drawn up by the Charity Commissioners, and schemes which are now drawn up by the Board of Education, for the management of certain endowments, invariably almost provision is made that certain members of the governing bodies should be nominated by certain institutions of the kind to which I have referred. I imagine that it is extremely improbable that institutions of that kind would consent to do what the noble Lords desire them to do, and, instead of having a right to nominate the person or persons they think most fit, to submit a list to be criticised, and perhaps rejected by the County Council. I think it is most desirable that these words should remain as they are.
*EARL SPENCER: I am sorry to hear the answer given by the noble Duke, for I attach also great importance to this matter. The Government have said that they wish to leave as much power as possible to the County Councils, and not to interfere with them. If that is so, the Councils should be left as independent as they can be, and so made to feel the responsibility of their duties. I maintain that if they are to have a number of their committees filled up in this way, without their having the direct nomination, it will take away from the responsibility of the Councils to a great extent. In the case of endowment schemes under the Charity Commissioners, to which the noble Duke referred, the circumstances are very different. I happen to be on the governing body of Harrow and on the governing body of Rugby. On those bodies there are, no doubt, persons nominated by different societies—one by the University of Cambridge, another by the Royal Society. But these bodies are not local bodies they meet in London, and it is perfectly easy for their members to meet. That

865
cannot be the case with County Councils. Take my own county. It has not a university in it; It is a considerable way from Oxford or Cambridge, and there is no public school or any body in it which could nominate persons on these committees. I therefore say that this is rather a deceptive method of taking experts on to these bodies. I prefer myself, as I have often said, elective members; but I should not object to have a limited number of co-opted members; but if they are to be co-optire members, I maintain that it is the Council who is responsible for everything, who should elect them rather than the Board of Education. I think the greater responsibility which rests on the County Councils ought to invest in them the power of selecting these co-optive members, rather than that the power should be vested in other bodies.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I should like to give the noble Lord a concrete case. In the scheme of the County Borough of Manchester it is probable that provision would be made for the nomination of a representative of Owens College. The noble Earl opposite, as Chancellor of the Victoria University, is very well acquainted with Owens College. Does he think that it would be consistent with the dignity of that institution to undertake the duty of sending in a list of names from whom the County Council might select one, or perhaps reject all? Does he not think that it would be more consonant with the dignity of that institution to give them the power, which we are perfectly certain that they would exercise wisely, of nominating the man they thought fittest to represent them?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I should like to express what the feeling of the County Councils Association is as against this Clause as it stands. In the case the noble Duke has just put there is no doubt that the County Council would at once ask such a body as Owens College to make a nomination.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Under your proposal they would have to send in a list of nominees.
LORD NORTHBROOK: I am dealing not with the words, but with the substance of the proposal. Let me explain what the County Councils object to. What they resent is the power given by this Clause to the Board of Education to insist on the Council taking the nominees of other bodies. Under this Clause if there is any difference between the County Councils and the Board of Education, the Board of Education have the power to make a scheme, and in that scheme, as the Clause stands, the Board of Education would give the right (the noble Duke used the word "right") to make a nomination which the County Council would be bound to accept. That is a manner of treating County Councils which they very much resent. The language used by the noble Duke in this House, I am bound to say, is far less conciliatory than the language used by Sir William Anson in another place. When this matter was discussed in another place, the answer given to the objections raised on the part of the County Councils was that the Board of Education had no intention whatever of interfering with the action of the County Councils. The noble Marquess opposite, only the other day said that the real wish of the Board of Education was to act with the County Councils in this matter of nominees. But the noble Duke has taken another line tonight, and has talked about giving the "right" of nomination to members of the County Councils.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said the scheme would probably provide it.
LORD NORTHBROOK: It is the same thing. If the Board of Education does not agree to any scheme giving this right, what is it but forcing the nominated members upon the County Council? That is what they object to. I will not detain your Lordships about the matter, because I see that your Lordships are not inclined to support the views of the County Councils; but I very much regret the tone of the noble Duke's objections to this Amendment. I will close by asking one question, which, I think, at any rate, we have a right to have answered. The wording of the Clause is this: "For the appointment by the Council on the

867
nomination where it appears desirable," and so on; but it does not say to whom it is to appear desirable.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would like to intervene for one moment with regard to a remark that fell from the noble Earl opposite. The Board of Education will only intervene at the last moment, if all other assistance fails in the matter of selection. The Board of Education relies on those bodies to whom we have alluded to supply us with nominees, who will occupy a responsible place on the County Councils. But I endorse most cordially the words that fell from the noble Duke—that, if those important bodies representing colleges ami similar institutions are to be told to send a number of nominees, from whom the Councils may pick as they choose, they will refuse, and, I think, very justly. Possibly, one of the great schools might send up two of its tutors, and the senior might be passed over and the junior taken. Surely no public body is going to put itself in that position. It is in order to preserve the advantage of co-opting from those bodies to which I have alluded the nominees that they would select themselves, that I hope your Lordships will not agree to the proposed alteration of these words. I am convinced that if this Amendment is accepted, the loss would be that of the committees. It would lose the committees the advantage of these important and influential bodies sending representatives, and you would have to fall back, perhaps, on the Board of Education to send anyone they think fit, in consequence of your having refused to give these bodies the power of nominating.
*EARL SPENCER: With regard to the "concrete case" put to me by the noble Duke, I think it is very likely that the County Borough of Manchester would say, "We should certainly like to have a representative of Owens College; we will ask them to nominate one"; there would be no difficulty about it.
LORD MONKSWELL: On the Clause as it stands I understand the County Councils would be bound to accept these nominations, but Sir William Anson stated in another place that that was not the meaning of the Clause, and that the County Councils would not be obliged to
868
accept the nominations. I should like to ask what the view of the noble Duke is as to that?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It depends on the scheme.
LORD MONKSWELL: But when a nomination is sent to the County Council will the County Council have the power to refuse it?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot tell what will be in the scheme until the scheme is proposed by the County Council.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: l think my noble friend is justified in pressing for an answer to this question. Is the County Council entitled to refuse the nomination of one of these bodies referred to in this section? This is a question not of the scheme, but of the interpretation of the section.
LORD WENLOCK: Will the noble Duke reply to the question of the noble Earl, as to the exact significance of the words "where it appears desirable?"
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think all noble Lords are just as capable of interpreting the words of the section as I am. I should think that "where it appears desirable," meant, where it appears desirable to the Council, but my interpretation does not carry any weight with it; noble Lords must make up their own minds as to what the words mean.
LORD NORTHBROOK: If I may be allowed to use the expression, I think that is rather a curious answer to come from the noble Duke, because an Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to insert after the word "desirable," the words "to the Council," and that Amendment the Government refused to accept. I think it would be very desirable not to put in such inflexible words if you have to make the confession that you do not know exactly what the words mean.
On Question, "That the word 'nomination' stand part of the Clause," resolved in the affirmative.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: My Lords, I attach very considerable importance to the Amendment I now rise to move. These education committees will have functions to perform which will be of the utmost importance to the non-provided schools. They will, at any rate, be an advisory committee, and very possibly they may be delegates of the County Council to carry into effect all the provisions of the Act. They will have, for instance, to deal with the question of repairs, which is a vital question for many of the smaller non-provided schools. They will have to deal with the question of extension of schools and the provision of new schools. They will have to deal with salaries to be allotted to teachers, and the number of teachers, and though I do not for a moment suppose that there will be any partiality on any education committee, yet there will be a natural bias for schools provided and maintained by themselves rather than for schools outside theirown particular province. It is of great importance that the views of the managers of the non-provided schools with regard to equality of scheme and equipment of every kind should be presented, at least, to the committee? Then they have the absolute control over the syllabus and over the text-books to be used. I can hardly fancy a point upon which the education committees are more likely (perhaps unwittingly) to go against the wishes of the managers of the non-provided schools if they do not hear what they have to say. A committee might recommend as a historical book Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," which might not suit some of the managers. There might be a variety of text-books upon which the managers of non-provided schools ought to be heard, because the peace of the schools and the pecuniary interests of the schools would be concerned. What chance have the managers of certain denominational schools in this country of any representation on the education committee. The Church of England is certain always to have both on the Council and on the education committee, members of their denomination who will, of course, present the case of the non-provided schools belonging to the Church of England; but the religious minorities, the Wesleyans, the Jews, the Roman Catholics, will not have the remotest chance of getting a member on the education committee, except by means of some such Amendment as that which I now propose.
870
Even with regard to the religious instruction you now give to the public by means of the two managers whom the County Council nominate and appoint a voice in the religious instruction of the school, and selected as they may be by the education committee, they may prove extraordinarily inconvenient and distasteful to the other managers of these schools. Surely it is only fair and just that somebody should be able to present to the education committee the views of the managers of the class of schools to which I refer. As I said, these small schools will have no chance of getting upon the education committees without some such provision. Noble Lords will observe that I limit the Amendment in two ways; in the first place, that the association shall be approved by the Board of Education, and therefore that it must be an Association which the Board of Education think competent to nominate a person who will be of use to the committee in the cause of education; and in the next place, there is the further condition that the nomination is not to apply to any class of schools except some class that would not otherwise obtain representation. So that if the County Council put a member of the denomination on the education committee of their own accord the right of nomination would not accrue. It is only to save these schools from being wholly unrepresented on a committee which is to deal with a variety of subjects which touch their pockets and affect in the strongest way the whole of the educational prosperity of the school, that I ask that this right of nomination shall be given to associations such as I have described. I shall be told, perhaps, by the noble Duke who, I trust, will at least meet this Amendment with indulgence and sympathy, that under the words "other bodies" such an association of voluntary schools as I have been speaking of could offer a nomination, but as I read the Clause that nomination need not be in the scheme. And that brings me to observe upon certain remarks that have fallen from Lord Northbrook and other noble Lords on that side of the House as to the effect of this Clause. It appears to me clear that unless the scheme names the body who is to nominate a member of the education committee, the body will have no right at all of making a nomination, and, consequently, no chance of getting an appointment. "Where it is

871
desirable" I think means, as the noble Duke said, desirable to the Council; therefore, if the Council do not think it desirable to nominate a particular body, that body would never get an appointment made. I quite agree that the Board of Education is not powerless in the matter; I think they have got a discretion also, because any scheme must be approved by them; consequently—I will not take an association of voluntary schools as an example, but I will take the case already put of Owens College, Manchester—the Board of Education might say "we will not approve of this scheme unless it includes Osvens College, Manchester, as having a right to nominate." Then Owens College would get into the scheme; but unless the scheme fixes the body who has the right to nominate, that right will not arise. If the body gets nominated in the scheme, then the appointment will follow. I am interested—of course I need not tell your Lordships—in the Roman Catholic schools, but what I am asking for is not for the benefit of Roman Catholic schools alone. The same privilege would attach to Jewish schools, and Wesleyan schools, and there may be places where even the powerful Church of England might be glad to take advantage of this Amendment. For aught I know there are some districts in Wales, and in some large boroughs, perhaps(Leicester for example), in which the Church of England would not have a member of the Church of England on the education committee, and in which, therefore, an association of voluntary schools belonging to the Church of England ought, according to the principle of this Amendment, to have the right of nominating a member to state their case on the education committee. I agree that such an association of voluntary schools as I have described may be possibly admitted to be one of the bodies who might be in the scheme, but the chance of their being in the scheme laid down by the County Council is not a very proximate chance. Boards of Education are not infallible, and there might be Hoards of Education who absolutely refuse to sanction any scheme of this sort. Therefore it is that I put my Amendment after the word "nomination" and before the words "where it appears desirable." I do hope that your Lordships will think that I am not asking too much when I ask that an association of
872
schools belonging to a religious minority, possibly a minority that is in the locality extremely unpopular and even odious, should yet have a representative on a committee which is to deal with matters of the closest and dearest interest to them. I believe I should be out of order if I quote the words used in another place by the Prime Minister, but he said that he thought there ought to be some method discovered, by which the representation of these religious minorities should be ensured on the education committees. Noble Lords opposite have repeatedly urged that all interests ought to be represented, and I am now pleading for an interest ought to be represented, and I am now pleading for an interest which, unless it has a voice, is not unlikely to receive unjust treatment at the hands of some education committees. I trust I shall be met with some sympathy from the "adamantine front" of the noble Duke, and I can only appeal to him that he will not entirely refuse the scheme of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 16, after 'nomination' to insert 'of associations of voluntary schools within their area, approved by the Board of Education, and comprising a class of schools which would not otherwise obtain representation on the committee, &e."
LORD REDESDALE: I must apologise for intervening in this debate, being so recently a Member of your Lordships' House, but this Amendment of my noble friend's affects a class in which I am very largely interested. It appears to me that the Amendment, while safeguarding the class of schools to which my noble friend referred, cuts out other bodies.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: No, I do not cut them out. I leave other bodies subject to the pleasure of the County Council first, and of the Education Department, but "and other bodies" remains exactly where it is after the words "where it appears desirable."
LOUD REDESDALE: I do not think it is quite clear here, but I will not press the point.
THE DUKE OK DEVONSHIRE: The terms of the sub-Section were certainly intended not to exclude associations of voluntary schools, and although it was not in drafting, the Clause considered necessary or desirable that associations should

873
be specifically mentioned, other ways of providing what the noble Lord desires might be found. But I understand that something very much approaching a pledge has been given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on this subject, and I think I may say that we will undertake to deal with the matter on Report. I do not think the Amendment drafted by the noble Lord could be accepted, but we will undertake to insert the words "including associations of voluntary schools" after the word "bodies," so that the Clause would run:
"For the appointment by the Council on the nomination, where it appears desirable, of other bodies, including associations of schools."
and so on. If necessary, the matter can be further discussed on Report, but I will at once move that those words be there inserted.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: I gratefully accept what the noble Lord says—that he will introduce these words now—but may I reserve to myself the right of considering the matter further on Report?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Amendment made—
"In page 10, line 17 after the word 'bodies,' be inserted the words "including associations of voluntary schools.'"—(The Lord President.)
*LORD COLERIDGEsaid the Amendment he now moved provided for the retirement of the members of the education committees. If the committee were merely a committee of the Council of a County Borough, of course it would come to an end with the life of the body who appointed it. If the view of the Government was that an education committee of a County Council was in the same position, there would be no need of this Amendment, but he understood the education committee was not a committee of the County Council; in other words, the County Council was capable of nominating persons on to the education committee, who would remain members of the committee long after they had
874
ceased to be members of the Council. That was an anomaly that ought to be remedied. What period was to be placed on membership of the committee? Were the nominated members to be members for life, or for a definite period? In the Lower House, Sir William Anson had said that nobody had ever dreamt that the Committees were to be permanent bodies, and expressed the view that members of the Council on the committee would cease to be on the committee when they ceased to be members of the Council. But what then would be the position of the committee? It would be left with only the co-opted members. His Amendment was framed to meet the double case of the County Council and the Borough Councils. Members of the latter went out in thirds, and therefore the Council itself never carne to an end; he therefore proposed that no member of an education committee, whether a member of a Borough Council or of a County Council, should remain a member of the committee for more than three years.
Amendment moved—
"Page 10, line 2o, after 'committee,' to insert as a new paragraph:—' (C) for the periodic retirement of members of the committee, so that no member of the committee shall be appointed for a longer period than three years, but so that every member on retirement shall be eligible for re-appointment.' "—(Ten Lord Coleridge.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid this was a question to be decided rather in the scheme than in the Bill. Sub-Section (2) of Clause 22 provided that—
"Any scheme or Provisional Order under this Act may contain such incidental or consequential provisions as may appear necessary or expedient."
It would not be desirable to lay down exactly the same conditions for every scheme.
Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF GAMPERDOWNsaid that sub-Section (4) provided that a person should be disqualified for membership of an education committee who held office or place of profit, or had any share or interest in a contract, and so on, but it wound up that—
"No such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college, aided, provided or main-ained by the Council."
His original intention was (and it would perhaps have been more logical) to move to delete this proviso altogether; but it had been pointed out to him that it might be desirable that a person should be on the committee who belonged to a college, and therefore he would content himself with proposing to leave out the words "school or." He held that the proper place for a schoolmaster was in his school, and it would be no gain to the school or to the committee if the schoolmaster left his school work and devoted his time to the work of the committee, as would frequently be the case.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 31, to leave out 'school or.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked how the noble Earl differentiated between a school and a college. In the definition Clause the word "college" was declared to include "any educational institution, whether residential or not." Would anything, therefore, he gained by the omission in this Section of the words "school or"?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was not the draftsman of the Bill, and was not responsible for its definitions, or anything else.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid the Government substantially agreed with the noble Earl, but he thought the case could be best met by the addition to the sub-Section of the words "otherwise than under Part III. of this Act." That would exclude teachers in elementary schools.
*EARL SPENCER: Will it also exclude teachers in a college?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
*EARL SPENCER: I cannot quite see the difference. If you exclude a teacher in an elementary school because he may be interested in a subject coming up before the Committee, does not the same argument apply to a teacher in a college within the county?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I rather regret the decision of the Government, for this reason. On the
876
Technical Instruction Committees elementary school teachers are frequently found to be most valuable members, as they bring a knowledge on many subjects which is by no means common among managers. I hope the Government will reconsider this.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the noble Duke, and to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Amendment made—
"In page 10, line 32, by adding after the word 'Council,' the words "otherwise than under Part III. of this Act."—(The Lord President.)
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, explaining the next Amendment, said he thought it very desirable to have these co-opted members on the committee, but I he did not think they ought to be allowed I to vote in respect of their own salaries.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 32, after 'council' to in-sert 'Provided that no such person shall vote on any question relating to the salary or conditions of employment of any member of the teaching staFf of any such school or college." (The Earl of Northbrook.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Does the noble Lord think this necessary, after the Amendment that has just been I made?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Sub-Section (c) of this Clause runs thus—
"The County Council shall charge such portion as they think fit, not being less than one-half or more than three-fourths of any expenses incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure on account of the provision or improvement of any public elementary school on the parish or parishes which in the opinion of the Council are served by the school."

877
Under that sub-Section at least one-fourth, and possibly up to half, of the capital expenditure on a school which is incurred by the County Council may be put upon the general county rate. Now, I want to ask what are the reasons for the insertion of the words, "not being less than one-half or more than three-fourths." As the Bill originally stood the words ran—
"The County Council shall charge any expenses on that parish which in the opinion of the Council is served by the school."
That was perfectly just, and it was a principle to which the Government for a long time adhered. I have endeavoured to trace what occurred, and I find that the Government for a long time argued that this was the right thing to do, as I believe your Lordships will think also, but at some period, for some reason that. I cannot ascertain, at all events from the Debates, these words were inserted. So that the result now is that, wherever a new school is built by the County Council, at least one-fourth of the cost will be thrown on the county generally. I ask, is that fair to the other parishes, who have already borne the expenditure of providing their own schools? I do not understand how it can be justified. The Government have stated that it is their wish to keep all denominational schools as they are, but if you want to turn a denominational school into a county school nothing will do it so rudely as this sub-Section. After all, it is pounds;. s. d. that governs the British ratepayer; and I put it to all noble Lords who have had any experience in these matters, whether it is not really economy in the rates that has had more to do with stopping School Boards than any other cause. This Clause is one of several reasons—one or two of which I have quoted in the course of these debates— that make me see very clearly that the number of voluntary schools will be rapidly reduced.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 3, to leave out from 'charge' to 'any' in line 5." — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The County Council has to decide whether a new school is to be built in the parish or not, and it appears that some part of
878
the expenses ought to be borne by the authority which is to decide on the erection of the new school. If that were not so, the Council would be deciding on expenditure which the country as a whole has not got to meet. The change has been rendered necessary by the new financial Clauses introduced into the Bill. The Necessitous Schools Grant formerly available for the purpose of new schools now goes to the county and not to the district. The Bill thus actually deprives them of some revenue which would have been at their disposal under the old system. For that reason also, it appears desirable that the whole of the expenditure should not be thrown upon the locality, but that part of it should be borne by the county.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Duke says that the Necessitous Schools Grant was formerly applied for capital expenditure. I speak subject to correction; but is the noble Duke sure that he is right? I rather think that that grant was never given for those purposes, only for increasing schools and so on.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Earl is thinking of the Aid Grant for Voluntary Schools. The Necessitous Schools Grant was given to the locality, and was available for any portion of their expenditure, including the payment of interest on the debt for building schools.
*EARL SPENCER: I hardly think the noble Duke has quite understood this Amendment. I may not properly understand it myself; but I do not think my noble friend at all disputes the point that this charge should be divided.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes I do; certainly.
*EARL SPENCER: As I read it, if the Amendment was carried, it will leave to the County Council to say what part of the charge is to go on the parish.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
*EARL SPENCER: Anyhow, that, I maintain, is the proper way of doing it. We continually have questions on the

879
County Councils as to what is to be given out of the county rates for improvements in particular places. That is one of the matters on which they are most particular, and they do it with the greatest care. I think the best thing is not to tie it up strictly, but to leave it open to the County Council to settle what part should be paid by the county rate and what by the parish.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I think that this is one of the most I important points that we could have discussed during these debates. The noble Lord said it is right that we should bear the cost of these additions to schools because the County Council is the body to determine whether the addition should be made or not. I would point out that it is not altogether at the discretion of the County Councils; if the population increases, increased accommodation becomes an absolute necessity. Section(d) contains the same provision with regard to expenses incurred to meet liabilities on loans of transferred School Boards. I happen to have property in two counties at the opposite ends of England, and in each case this proviso will bear very hardly. Take the county of Northumberland. In Tyneside you have a very thickly populated manufacturing and colliery population, and in the west of the county you have an area larger than the county of Suffolk, and more thinly populated than any county of England— moor-land and hill country. This latter part of the county has provided voluntary schools during all this time at its own expense, and now what you are going to say to these people in this thinly populated district is, "You must, whether the County Council likes it or not, bear one-half—you may have to bear three-fourths—of the debt which this rich, populous, growing part of the country has incurred for its schools, and, more than that, if in the future this growing, rich, and populous part of the county goes on increasing, as it inevitably will, you will have to bear one-half, and perhaps three-fourths of all the additional accommodation that will be required." It seems to me impossible to conceive anything more monstrous. These country districts have nothing whatever
880
to do with the towns. I do not say that the proximity of a large town may not increase the prosperity of a country district, but in these large areas it does so very slightly. It is most unfair that these country districts should bear the expense incurred by the rich part of the county. I just mentioned a county in. which I had property, namely, the county of Suffolk. I will not detain your Lordships with details, but everybody knows that there are parts of the county of Suffolk which are very populous; unfortunately for myself, I know also that there are rural districts in Suffolk where there is a dry and unproductive sandy soil, and where it is almost impossible to let your farms, so much depressed is agriculture. That is the district you are going to charge with the expenses of school accommodation in the environs of London. I say I cannot conceive anything more unjust from any point of view. I should like to point out that the argument of the noble Duke, that the County Council are the people who incur this expenditure is in. the case of past expenditure, if he will, allow me to say so with all respect, incorrect. The County Councils have not incurred the debts of the School Board, and with regard to the new Councils it-is incorrect in another sense, because it is not at the discretion of the County Council to give additional accommodation, but it depends on the rate of increase in the population.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Let rne draw your Lordships' attention to what the effect of this Amendment would be. In either case it would be to, place everything on the parish in which the school was situated. I think it would be unfair. We consider that the-county ought to take over some of the burdens of these rates.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREmoved, an Amendment to provide for the case where, instead of building a school, the: premises are hired.
Amendment moved—
"In page 15, line 6, after 'expenditure,' to, insert 'or rent.' "—(The Duke of Dexonshire.)
*EARL SPENCER: I think that this Amendment raises again the question of Privilege. The same Amendment was put down in another place on Report, and it was struck out by the Speaker because it had not gone through the proper form of a Resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means. If this is put in here, I presume it will be ruled out by the Speaker in the same way.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think, probably, the noble Earl anticipates rightly the fate which any Amendment of this sort would meet with in another place, but according to the opinion of high authorities this House is not debarred by any ruling of its own from discussing such points; it is entirely for its own consideration whether it should discuss at much length Amendments of which we know the almost certain fate when they reach another place.
LORD TWEED MOUTH: I would only remind your Lordships that in 1897 the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack interfered twice or thrice. or four times, with noble Lords on this side in their moving Amendments, and that they acquiesced in his advice, and that the House on that occasion did not discuss (and I think wisely) privilege Amendments such as this.
*THE EARL OF HALSBUHY: I must repeat to your Lordships what I have more than once said in the course of these debates. Indeed, I think it is irregular, and not right after what I have already explained, that the noble Lord should attribute to me a course of action which I have more than once explained that I never took. What I in did 1897 was this, and I should be prepared to do it again. Certain Amendments were proposed which seemed to me so flagrant and so outrageous a breach of the privilege of the House of Commons that it would be absolutely certain that when they went to another place they would be struck out. I did nothing beyond this. I put it to the noble Lords—I think these were the words—to consider whether it was consistent with the dignity of this House to discuss and divide upon Amendments which undoubtedly would be rejected by the
882
House of Commons. That is all I did, and then without any determination of this House the noble Lords, apparently being convinced by my observations—it was only advice—acting on their own motion and their own responsibility, withdrew all their Amendments. That is what happened, and I hope it will not be quoted again as any ruling by me when it was only a suggestion.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I did not quote it as a ruling of the noble and learned Lord. I said it was by the advice of the noble and learned Lord, that those Amendments were withdrawn. However, the fact remains that the noble Duke opposite admits that he fears the same fate will be shared by these particular Amendments that he is moving.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not this Amendment.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I thought the noble Duke said so.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Well I hope that will not be the case.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I appeal to the House whether that was not the idea that was conveyed by what the noble Duke said—that he admitted the fate which this Amendment was likely to meet.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No; I meant the Amendment which we have just been discussing. I do not know what view might be taken of my Amendment, but I trust that as it is really little more than a drafting Amendment, and is necessary to supply an omission in the scheme of the Bill, it may get through, but the other Amendment which we have been discussing up to now would have boon, I think, met with a complete reversal.
*EARL SPENCER: I only referred to, the question of the word "rent."
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: And my noble friend made his point perfectly clear. Positively the Amendment now proposed by the noble Duke is one that was ruled out of order by the Speaker on Report in the other House, because it had not been introduced in the Committee of Ways and Means.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As to that I will not speak with certainty, but I hope the other House will be disposed to take a lenient view of any breach of its privileges that it may consider that we have committed.
On Question,"That the word ' rent' be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have an Amendment on the Paper, in page 12, line 7, after the words "public elementary school," to insert the words "provided by them." It must be a county school which is built; if it were a voluntary school being built it would be impossible for any expenditure to be made upon that by the County Council 'Owing to Clause (d) which obliges the voluntary schools to provide any money for purposes of that sort. I think these words will have to be inserted.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I regret that I have been unable to hear the observations of the noble Lord. Perhaps he will bring the matter up on Report.
The EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then I wish to move an Amendment in sub-Section (d), which again raises the point we were discussing on sub-Section (c). Sub-Section (d) is a very much more serious matter. This sub-Section provides that of the loans incurred by School Boards that are taken over, not less than one-fourth, and possibly up to one-half, may be charges upon the general county rate. I really cannot understand upon what principle that proposal is made. Remember, these are loans with regard to expenditure from which the county has had no benefit whatever. The county parishes have all been obliged to build their own schools in the best way they could. The board schools have built their schools out of these loans, but now, when they are transferred to the County Council, the county is to be forced to come upon its rates for no less than one-fourth, and possibly for one-half, of the portion of the loans remaining. This is not the original principle of the Bill. The original principle was that these loans should be charged and levied on the
884
districts in which they had been incurred. That was the just and proper course to take, but now a very considerable portion of these loans are to be paid by the county. I will give a single concrete instance that has been furnished tome. The Chairman of the Worcester County Council says that the county has had no benefit whatever from these loans, and nothing to do with contracting them, but he says "at the present time in Worcester county. the School Boards owe a sum of £110.000." It follows from this enactment that no less than £29,000, and possibly £58,000, may be put upon the general rates of the county. I am utterly at a loss to understand upon what principle that imposition is raised.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 11, to leave out 'not being less than one-half, or more than three-fourtlis.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is very edifying, of course, to hear the speeches of the noble Lord, but l can only repeat the answer I gave when we were discussing sub-Section (c), namely, that the County Council are now drawing the Necessitous Schools Grant under the Act of 1897, which used to go to the parishes in aid of these loans, and therefore that the county should in justice take some part of the burden.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What is the amount that they used to draw?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As I understand the Clause, the County Council, in taking over the liabilities of extinct School Boards, is responsible for three-fourths of that liability. It is obvious that one-fourth still remains to be paid. I should like to know who is going to pay that.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is paid by whoever pays it now.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: But the School Boards are extinct.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The parishes liable for it before are liable for it still. Surely sub-Sections (c) and (d) must go together, and we have already decided that the whole county is to be liable for a portion.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But this is past expenditure.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This is past, but I say if the county, as we have decided, is to be liable for a part of the future expenditure on the provision of new schools, it would not be equitable that districts referred to in Section (d) should go on paying the whole of their expenses and a portion of the expenses of the rest of the county
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is not their expenses; it is the liavilities the School Boards incurred previously to their being handed over to the County Council.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: But they are to pay the expenses exactly the same as the country does in the future.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All I can say is, that it is a very ordinary principle that everybody should pay hiown debts. However, I clearly cannot take the matter further.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
"In page 12, line 13, after 'loans' to insert or rent; in line 28, after 'apply' to insert in lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to accounts and audit'; in lines 36 and 37 to leave out 'committee or managers' and insert 'education committee established under this Act, or to the managers of any public elementary school'; in line 38, after 'anthority,' to insert 'but the auditor of those accounts shall have the same powers with respect to managers as the local education authority.' "—(The Lord President.)
Amendments Agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREexplained that the Amendment he had to move was suggested by the Local Government Board, who were of opinion that they might want to hold local inquiries, not only with respect to sanctioning loans, but also with respect to giving their sanction to an extension of
886
the limit of rate under Clause 2, and with respect to making Orders adapting the provisions of local Acts.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 6, to leave out sub-Scetion (2)."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:—
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELLremarked upon the large powers of delegation which this Clause gave, and drew the attention of the Government to the provisions of the Parish Councils Act, which distinctly prohibited Parish Councils having any part in the management of parish schools. This Clause might refer to schools or colleges, which no one would desire should be put under the control of Parish Councils; while, on the other hand, the parish schools were deliberately excluded by the Clause must have crept in by some oversight.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 17, to leave out 'or parishes.'"
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think this had better be put down on Report.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that as this Clause stood, there seemed to be no power to make any grant to an evening school under the Elementary Education Act for the teaching of anything but the three R's. He did not think to limit the teaching in such a school. A great many other things were taught in the elementary day schools; why should the evening schools be specially restrieted? He did not appreciate making such a fetish of the three R's Many students

887
might desire to learn a great deal more than the three R's, and it would be of advantage for them to receive instruction in some practical subjects. The Amendment he proposed would leave the education authority to define the elementary instruction which was suitable to the needs of the district.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 13, to leave out 'instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic,' and insert 'elementary instruction.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Before any discussion is taken upon this, I may be allowed to say that this is an extremely important and also a rather complicated question. I am intending to confer with the Prime Minister upon the subject in the course of tomorrow, and I shall probably be able to state the view of the Government better upon the Report stage.
*THE LOEDBISHOP OF HEREFORD: Then I withdraw the Amendment for the moment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved an Amendment to sub-Section 11. As the Bill passed the House of Commons, the sub-Section read—
"That county councillors elected for an electoral division, consisting wholly of a borough or urban district, whose Council are a local education authority, tor the purpose of Part III. of this Act shall not act or vote."
The words "act or" were struck out presumably because it was thought that voting was acting and that the words were superfluous. He thought, however, the word "vote" should not stand alone; he did not see why the time of the council should be taken up by speeches of members who had no interest in the matters in hand. He moved that the words should be "shall not speak or vote."
Amendment moved,—
"In page 15, line 26, after 'not,' to insert speak or.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
*EARL SPENCERsaid this was a point of some difficulty; it really introduced what was an old friend to some of their
888
Lordships—namely, the in-and-out question, which on a certain Irish Bill was very much discussed. The in-and-out method was applied in London on various County Councils. The provision in the Bill would work very curiously. Take a Borough Council that had authority under certain Acts separately from the authority of the County Council. Two or three county councillors might be on the Borough Council, and under the Bill those councillors could not vote on the County Council on educational matters, although they might vote on the Borough Council. Again, take a committee of the Education Department; if it was purely a committee for primary education they could not vote there, but if it was an advisory committee of the Education Department—a committee to advise on primary education as well as on secondary schools—what would happen then? Again, there might be a county inspector who was county inspector for both secondary and primary educatoin. Were these members of the same authority to abstain from voting or not? It would be an important matter to the authority in the case of two or three of its very best men on the education committee being thrown out by reason of this Clause. The matter was very complicated. With regard to the Amendment, he did not see why, if these persons were to be excluded from voting, they should not be excluded also from speaking.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the provision which was originally inserted in the Bill in Committee in the House of Commons contained the words "actor." These words were, however, subsequently struck out in the House of Commons on the suggestion of a great many Members that they would prevent many of their best men being on the various education committees. It was thought that these members would be most useful to the committees, although they did not vote, if they could attend the meetings and speak on the various subjects that came up for discussion. It is quite possible there may be some complication such as suggested by the noble Earl, but I do not understand exactly what it is. All it says is that they cannot vote on any matters, relating to Part III. of the Act.
*EARL SPENCER: But the committee may be a committee to act for secondary and also for primary education. They would be voting really for the election of the committee that was to attend to primary education.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This provision refers to the authority itself, not to the committee.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Yes, and that seems to me to be the answer to the noble Duke. The words are "in respect of any question arising before the County Council." There is nothing to prevent the County Councils appointing the members of the committees. What this says is that when something is coming up before the County Council they shall not vote. Then I say if they cannot vote they should not speak. If the noble Duke is right, it would mean that they could not vote on the education committee. It cannot mean that.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Suppose it were a question of appointion an inspector for secondary education and elementary education, then these particular people could vote for his appointment as inspector of secondary education. but not for his appointment as inspector of elementary education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: With regard to the question of speaking and not voting, it is exactly the same provision as is in force now on County Councils with regard to small boroughs that had to manage certain matters; they are allowed to speak on the County Council, but not allowed to vote. It is a convenient procedure; there is no reason why they should not be allowed to speak, but if there is a division, they ought not to be allowed to record a vote.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREmoved to add the following new sub-Sections—
"Sub-Sections 1 and 5 of Section 87 of the Local Goveniment Act. 1888 (which relate to local enquiries), shall apply with inspect to any order, consent, sanction, or approval which the Local Government Board are authorised to make or give under this Act.
890
"The amount which would be produced by any rate in the pound shall be estimated for the purposes of this Act in accordance with the regulations made bv the Local Government Board.
"Teachers in a school maintained, but not provided, by the local education authority shall be in the same position as respects disqualification for office as members of the authority as teachers in a school provided by the authority."
Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in moving the next Amendment, said it surely could not be intended that the census of 1901 should be operative for all time.
Amendment moved—
"In page 15, line 33, to leave out 'census of 1901' and insert 'last published census.'"— (The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It certainly is very much intended. It is proposed to make a stereotyped distinction between those boroughs which are autonomous and those which are not. If it was not for this provision, no County Council would be able to make a scheme for organising the education within its borough; it would never know what boroughs shall be included in the county and what may become autonomous.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Then I understand if a county in future increases and becomes very much larger, and is large enough under this section to claim a separate jurisdiction, it is not to have it because it is estimated, not upon its then population, but on the population of 1901. Allow me to give an instance. There is a borough now which is composed of 9,000; in ten years, when the next census is taken, it is found to have 20,000 people; but because it was 9,000 in the year 1901 this Act is not to apply. Surely that cannot lie intended.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is intended. If the other principle were adopted the borough of 10,000, which now is under the Bill autonomous, when the population fell to 9,000, ought to cease to be autonomous. That is not the proposal. It is proposed that those boroughs which are in the position described in the Bill shall be and remain autonomous, so

891
that both they, and the counties, should be able to organise their educational schemes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
First Schedule:—
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid the Amendment he proposed to move was intimately connected with the point their Lordships had been discussing on Clause 18. As he was not in his place during that discussion, he might be permitted to say that his object in putting down these Amendments was to make it perfectly clear that when the sub-committed of the education committee of the County Council acted in its capacity as a school attendance committee, it shoukd have power to act in the capacity without reference to the committee or the Council. He understood that that was really the intention of the Bill. If he had some assurance from the noble Duke that words would be inserted in the Bill to make that quite clear, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 25, after 'fit' insert 'And may, subject as aforesaid, delegate to any such sub-committee any powers or duties which may have been delegated to the committee by the Council. Every such sub-committee shall report its proceedings to the committee by which it was appointed, but to the extent to which the committee shall, subject as aforesaid, so direct the acts and proccedings of the sub-committee shall not be required to be submitted for approval to the committee or to the Council.' "—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I believe that it will be possible to introduce words on Report which will make the point quite clear.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to substitute "six months" for "three months" as the maximum interval between the meetings of managers. Many of these schools were in sparsely-populated districts, and there was no necessity for such frequent
892
meetings. He saw no necessity for putting any limitation at all but if any were to be put in the inconvenience would be diminished by making it six months instead of three.
Amendment moved—
"In page 18, line 10, to leave out 'three' and insert 'six.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONDHIREsaid another noble Lord on the opposite side had proposed that the maximum should be one month. Three months was a pretty fair compromise.
LORD WENLOCKthought the noble Earl could not have been a manager of a school or he would not have made such a proposition.
*LORD REAYwas able to state that his noble and learned friend, Lord Davey, had put the Amendment on the Paper as, from his actual experience as member of a School Board in a rural parish, he knew that the to meet once a month, and even oftener. The school was very efficient.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDremarked that that was rather a reason for his Amendment. There might be many boards of managers who wish to meet frequently, but why compel them to meet when it might not be necessary?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:—
Drafting Amendments made.
Amendments made—
"In page 20, line 36, after 'day' to insert as a new paragraph, '(15). During the period between the passing of this Act and the appointed day, the managers of any public elementary school, whether provided by a School Board or not, and any school attendance committee, shall furnidh to the Council, which will on the appointed day become the local education authority, such information as the Council may reasonably require.' "—(The Lord President.)
*LORD KINNAIRD: Apparently several noble Lords have been approached with reference to the Amendment I now rise to

893
move, and I understand that the answer given in another place with reference to the reason for excluding teachers of voluntary schools is not altogether considered satisfactory, and the teachers therefore desire to have their Lordships' opinion upon this matter. I understand that in another place the answer was that the School Boards ceased to exist, and that therefore, as it was necessary to put the teachers under some new authority, and therefore it was well to mention them; whereas the employers of the voluntary school teachers arc not dispossessed, and therefore there is no reason to protect their interests. I think your Lordships will see that there are possible eventualities which might make it very necessary to protect the interests of the voluntary school teachers. For instance, there are several hundreds of voluntary school teachers whose salaries have, through care and passing good examinations and long service, risen considerably, and above the salaries of School Board teachers. Under the now authority the salaries of those teachers might be decreased, and they might be told that if they did not care to take the reduced salary they had better go. I understand that without those words being put in they would not get the protection that is afforded to School Board teachers. Then there is another question: there might be a doubling up of sundry schools. Under the School Boards it would be obligatory on the School Board authoritv to find some other occupation or to give a retiring allowance. That would not bo the case with voluntary school teachers. There are many other questions that might arise. I will not trouble your Lordships further at this late hour, but the teachers aie anxious to know whether the Government would consider their position, either by accepting this Amendment, or by dealing with the matter in their own way on Keport.
Amendment moved—
"In page 21, line 16, after 'officers' to insert 'or teachers.' ''—(The Lord Kinnaird.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: There is no doubt the fact that the School Board teacher is technically described as an officer, whereas the voluntary teacher is net so described, makes some difference in their respective positions. The word "officers" appears in the Bill with regard
894
to defence and so on whore the word "teachers" does not appear. It is easy to see that that would naturally cause a great deal of uneasiness to voluntary school teachers. I therefore trust that the question will be made clear in some way.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My noble friend, Lord Meath, who is nfortunately prevented by indisposition from being here, has asked me to speak for him. I understand from what the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) has said, that the argument which was used when this matter was raised in the other House was that the masters, so to speak, of the teachers has changed in the board schools, whereas thev had not changed in the voluntary schools, and therefore the teachers in the voluntary schools were not entitled to the advantages of the teachers in the board schools.
*LORD KINNAIRD: I should like to read what was actually said. This is what appears in the Hansard report. Sir William Anson said:
'"Recorded service,' for the purpose of The Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Act. 1898, does not include service in technical and secondary schools. But teachers transferred to such schools will not lose the benefit of the contributions they have already made while in 'recorded service.' The Government have no inteition of extending the provisions of the Superannuation Act."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: It was a true and sound argument, I think, to say that the masters in both schools had been changed. You are changing the School Board into the local Education authority and you are changing the managers into the local education authority also, because you are giving to the education authority the power of dismissing these teachers "on educational grounds." I should like to ask the noble Duke this question. Would it be an "educational ground" to dismiss a teacher because you could get one cheaper. That case is extremely likely to arise. Supposing the education authority can say—" We can get some good leaching at a cheaper rate than we are paying for it," would that justify them, in dismissing the teacher on educational grounds? If not, then, are we to understand that no consideration of salary will justify the dismissal of a teacher by the education authority? If fixity of tenure

895
as regards all questions of salary can be conferred on the teachers that should be comprised in the Bill. I cannot help thinking that it is far more advisable to have any points of this sort settled in the Bill, so that the persons affected can see it rather than depend on utterances made in either House of Parliament.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I submit, my Lords, that it is a simple matter of justice that the teachers of the denominational schools should be placed on an equality with the officers of the board schools in this matter. I have had a large number of representations made to mo by teachers in various parts of the country who think that their interests are in danger. We must remember who these teachers are. Many of them are men who might have been receiving a larger salary in board schools than they consented to take in voluntary schools, simply because they wished to cany out the principles and the teaching of the Church to which they belonged. If it is intended by this Bill that the teachers shall be placed on an equality with the officers of the board schools, then we ask that that should be made plain on the face of the Bill, so that there may be no discussion or dissension hereafter on this point.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid it is impossible to do what is asked. It appears unnecessary to put these teachers into this paragraph at all. They have their own Government Pension Scheme, and there is no need for placing them under the local authorities' scheme. The School Board teachers are, as a matter of fact, within the provisions of this paragraph, as they are transferred officers. Voluntary school teachers, however, are not, and cannot be, under these provisions, because they are not in any sense of the word transferred officers. They remain under the managers under whom they have been already, and there is nothing in this Bill which affects their position.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendmcent moved—
"In page 21, line 21, after 'officer' to insert 'or teachers.' "—(The Duke of Northunberland.)
On question, Amendment negatived.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:—
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELDmoved an Amendment with the object of placing the trustees of school buildings in the same position in relation to those school buildings as they would lie in if they were owners of those buildings. The powers possessed by School Boards by this Bill were transferred to the local authorities. Amongst those powers was the power to purchase as well as to receive transfers of school buildings in accordance with the arrangements under the 23rd Clause of the Act of 1870. An arrangement under that Clause might provide for the absolute conveyance to the local authority of all the interest possessed by the managers or by any trustee for them, or for the school. Therefore a majority of two-thirds of the managers, with certain limitations, would be able under the provisions of the Act to alienate the school buildings and sell thorn to the authority. It was true that there were certain safeguards in the Act of 1870. First, the consent of the Board of Education was required; secondly, if there were subscribers there must be a resolution of two-thirds of the subscribers; and, thirdly, notice had to be served of the intention of the managers on any trustee who was not a manager. Certain things, however, had happened since 1870, which somewhat altered the position. The subscribers would be a varying quantity now, and as the subscribers would no longer be asked for maintenance, the number of subscribers would be reduced and their interest considerably diminished. With regard to the alienation of property in school buildings simply by a resolution of a majority of two thirds of the managers, it must be recollected that the trustees of the buildings were not always themselves managers, and although they might be notified of the fact that the managers proposed to part with the buildings, they might not be first consulted. Again, there had been an alteration in the composition of the committee of managers. There were now on the committee of management two members elected by an outside authority; they had no interest in the buildings themselves, and it would

897
seem to be a new proposal to give those who had no beneficial interest in the property the right to act on the question of the disposal of that property. Then, the value of that property had enormously increased in the last ten years. In the county of Stafford alone more than £150,000 had been spent on building, adding to, and improving Church schools since the year 1891. That enormous increase in the value of property ought to be taken into consideration. It was a witness to the fact that those who subscribed that largo amount were deeply in earnest in the work they did. He submitted that it was fair in these circumstances that the trustees should have the same privileges as the owners of property had under the Act of 1870.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 13, after 'payable,' insert' (3.) The consent of the trustees of a school shall be required to any arrangement made under Section 23 of the Elementary Kducation Act of 1870.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The right rev. Bishop will hardly expect me to follow him in the rather minute legal arguments which he has mentioned. I am advised that under Section 23 of the Act of 1870, to which the right rev. Bishop has referred, which relates to trustees of school, the interests of the trustees are protected in every possible way. The Board of Education have to give notice before any transfer to every trustee or owner; they have to consider objections and to give due regard to them, and no transfer can take place without the consent of the Board of Education. The Board of Education is charged with the duty of protecting private and public interests. I cannot imagine that it would be a convenient course to require the consent of every trustee of the school to transfers under the 23rd Section of the Act of 1870. I am advised, and believe, that that Act contains every provision which is really necessary and essential for the protection of the individual trustees.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments made.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule amended and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Saturday next; the Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 195.)

LONDON WATER BILL
Referred to the Examiners.

MAIL SHIPS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read, 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aa Tomorrow.—(The Earl of Selborne.) (No. 196.)
House adjourned at a quarter-past Twelve o'clock a.m. till half-past Ten o'clock a.m.