THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL

HL Deb 11 December 1902 vol 116 cc838-98

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 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 BUEGHCLERE

said 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 RIBBLESDALE

said 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 HALSBCJRY

said 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 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 COLCHESTER

said 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 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, 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 MANCHESTER

said 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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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

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," 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 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 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 LONDONDERRY

At 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 COLERIDGE

said 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 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 DEVONSHIRE

said 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 GAMPERDOWN

said 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 HEREFORD

asked 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 CAMPERDOWN

said he was not the draftsman of the Bill, and was not responsible for its definitions, or anything else.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said 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 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 DEVONSHIRE

moved, 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 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 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 DEVONSHIRE

explained 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 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 SOUTHWELL

remarked 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 HEREFORD

said 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 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

moved 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 SPENCER

said this was a point of some difficulty; it really introduced what was an old friend to some of their 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 DEVONSHIRE

moved 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. 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, 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 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 LYTTON

said 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

moved 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 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 DEVONDHIRE

said another noble Lord on the opposite side had proposed that the maximum should be one month. Three months was a pretty fair compromise.

LORD WENLOCK

thought the noble Earl could not have been a manager of a school or he would not have made such a proposition.

*LORD REAY

was 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 NORTHUMBERLAND

remarked 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 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 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 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 LICHFIELD

moved 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 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.)