Lords Sitting of 13 December 1902

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: of the United Presbytery of Auchterarder — and the Scottish Women's Protestant Union—
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Return showing for the year ended 31st August, 1902—

  1. The number of public elementary day schools and higher elementary schools which charge fees.

  2. The number of free scholars in those schools.

  3. The number of scholars paying fees in those schools.

  4. The school fees charged.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. Annual Series—
  No. 2921. Persia (Khorassan and Sistan).
  II. Miscellaneous Series—
  No. 586. United States (St. Joseph, Missouri).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 8, after 'and' to insert 'to.'"—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of Londonderry): The Amendment I now move is necessary, as the Clause applies to the application of money, not only by the education authorities under Clause 2, but by the Council of all boroughs and urban districts under Clause 3.
  Amendment moved—
  " In lines 28, 29, to leave out ' local education authority' and insert 'council.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  " In Clause 2, page 2, line 27, to leave out 'or used.'"—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  '"In Clause 5, page 3, line 6, after ' shall' to insert 'also.'"—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 3, line 18, after 'them' insert 'a body' of managers consisting of.'"—(The Lord President.)
  *Lord REAYasked whether it was intended that, where the local education authorities would be the Councils of urban districts or boroughs, it should not be imperative on them to appoint a body of managers for each school? Municipal control of elementary schools made this supervision by managers closely connected with the teachers in the schools, and with the parents whose children frequented the school, more important than it was under present circumstances of control by a body elected ad hoc.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Duke of Devonshire): The intention is to make it clear that there is to be a body of managers appointed.
  *Lord REAY: The words are "they may."
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes; it is optional.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 3, line 24, to leave out' representing local authorities.' "—(The Lord President.)
  On Amendment, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved —
  "In page 3, line 25, to leave out 'also as provided by this Act,' and insert: ' (a) where the local education authority are the Council of a county, one by that Council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the Council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.'"— (The Lord President.)
  *LORD REAYpointed out that the words now proposed to be inserted in Clause 6 were at present in Clause 12, and asked whether it was proposed to omit them from the latter Clause.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid the provisions of Clause 12 came more conveniently in Clause 6. The reason Clause 12 was made a separate Clause was that there was no time to pass those provisions before the Adjournment in August. Clause 12 would come out entirely. There was no alteration whatever; it was simply a question of rearrangement.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDreminded the House that in Committee the Lord Chancellor promised to look into the question as to the effect of the provision in sub-Section (d), that the managers of the school should provide the schoolhouse free of any charge to the local authority.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR(The Earl of HALSBURY) was not quite certain that he made himself intelligible in Committee, but the situation was this. The sub- Section which enacted that the managers should provide the school free of charge meant, of course, free of charge to the public. He should have been content to have introduced an Amendment reserving all rights notwithstanding that. But there was some difficulty in arranging that in the face of the remainder of the Bill. However, any difficulty that might arise would be entirely met by the managers themselves being called upon by the owner of the school to pay a rent to him. The question of what was the occupation of the school after it had been handed over to the managers might be a difficult one; but, so far as the statutory limitation was concerned,
  1064
  all that the statute required was that the managers should hand the school over to the public without any charge being made. That did not necessarily involve that the managers were not to pay rent, and if the owner of the school thought proper to exact from the managers some payment to preserve his rights, there would be no difficulty in doing so.
  The LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERmoved to insert "fair" before the word "wear" in sub-Section (d), with the object of making the words the same as appeared in another part of the Clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 31, after 'to,' insert ' fair.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
  On Question Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERmoved to insert, after "tear," "in the use of any room in the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary day school." He said the object of the Amendment was to make it clear that no charge was to be made for wear and tear outside the time of public elementary education; also that the charge should only be for wear and tear that affected the interior parts of the building which were directly used by the children, and not such outside buildings as belonged rather to the person or authority owning the school.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 4, line 31, after 'tear,' to insert 'in the use of any room in the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary day school.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid it was necessary that some such Amendment should be inserted. In Committee he placed two Amendments on the Paper, one referring to the use of the room in school hours, and the other to the use of the room out of school hours, but in order not to embarrass the Government he dropped the latter, thereby rendering his first Resolution liable to misunderstanding. The provision required to be made clearer, and the present Amendment would effect that object.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The object of this Amendment is to make the language of the provision consistent with the language of the remainder of the Section; therefore, the Government accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  'In page 4, line 42, after 'school,' insert 'house.'"—{The Lord President.)
  EARL BEATCHAMPasked what was the effect of the Amendment. It appeared to put the repairs in the schoolhouse on the local authority, and not on the managers.
  THE Duke OF DEVONSHIRE: It is a purely verbal Amendment; I am advised that it makes no substantial alteration.
  THE SECRETARY FORSCOTLAND (Lord Balfour of Burleigh): The noble Earl does not imagine that it applies to the teachers' houses.
  On Question Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEmoved to substitute for the proviso to sub-Section (6) the stipulation that where the trust deed required that religious instruction should be given in accordance with the principles or doctrines of any Church or denomination, in case any difference should arise as to the character of such religious instruction, an appeal might be made to the Bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority of such Church or denomination, whose decision should be final. He assured the House that he had not put the words on the Paper in any spirit of obstinacy, still less of disrespect or disregard for the opinion of the Lord Chancellor. He had been encouraged to move the Amendment by the assurance of the noble Earl on the Woolsack that, to a certain extent, he was in sympathy with its object, and the promise that between the Committee and Report stages he would consider its admissibility. He admitted, however, that it would be a fatal mistake to adopt this Amendment if it was likely to be rejected in the House of Commons, because they would then probably lose the
  1066
  valuable advantage of the words already inserted by the Lord Chancellor. The Amendment was not the same as he had moved in Committee; it did not include schools which had no trust deeds, and which he was told in Committee could not be regarded as belonging to any denomination, although they might have been maintained for thirty or fifty years by voluntary subscriptions solely for the purpose of teaching the doctrines of a particular denomination. There were some schools in the position of having had trust deeds and lost them, either owing to changes in the incumbency, or to the feeling of security engendered by long prescription. The Amendment included schools which had trust deeds identifying them with a particular denomination, but not giving this right of appeal. There were many schools in that position. One trust deed had just come under his notice in which it was said that the school was—
  " For the purpose of the education of poor children in the principles of the Christian religion, according to the doctrines and discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland."
  That would, he presumed, be an obsolete provision, and those schools would be in an especially difficult position, because it would be neither easy nor inexpensive to get their deeds altered, and they would consequently lose a most important safeguard against future trouble—a safeguard which Parliament ought to give them if only as a natural consequence of the interference with their trust deeds made by the present Bill in the important matter of the constitution of the managing body. He would move the Amendment, but, if the Government thought it likely to be opposed in the House of Commons, would not press it.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 5, line 27, to leave out from ' that' to the end of the sub-Section and insert ' where the t rust deed requires that religious instruction shall be given in accordance with the principles or doctrines of any church or denomination, in case any difference should arise as to the character of such religious instruction, an appeal may be made to the Bishop or superior ecclesiastical or other denominational authority of such church or denomination, whose decision shall be final."—(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)
  *EARL SPENCER: I have this morning had placed in my hands a letter which illustrates the difficulty there will

  1067
  be in applying this Clause. I must give it as I received it. I am sorry not to see the Bishop of London in his place, but probably one of the members of the right rev. Bench will be able to answer, or perhaps the noble Duke himself will be able to deal with it. I understand that there are certain parishes in which the Bishop has refused to interfere at all; I think the Bishop of Liverpool described the action as "boycotting a parish." A case arose in a parish in the diocese of London where the Bishop refused to interfere with regard to the ritual in the church, or whatever it was there was going on, of which complaint was made, or to allow any of his suffragans to interfere. What will happen in a case of that sort? The case I have before me is one in Stepney, where the incumbent resigned, and the Bishop immediately appointed one of his curates, so that the same practices go on now as before the resignation of the incumbent, and the church has been boycotted by the Bishop. That is just one of the cases in which an appeal might go to the Bishop. But if the parish is boycotted by the Bishop, how are they to get any relief at all on this question? This is a new point to me; I have not had time to verify the facts by separate reference, but it seemed to be such a peculiar case that I have ventured to put it forward. If I have been incorrectly informed, perhaps the proper version of the affair will be given.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: As far as the noble Earl's Amendment is concerned, after the deliberate determination of this House to adopt the words in the Bill which, I may point out were accepted by the whole House without a division, I do not think it would be desirable to alter the words of the Clause. In reference to the noble Earl's observations with regard to a "boycotted" parish, if he asks me what is to be done if a Bishop will not do his duty, frankly, I do not know. But I hope such an occasion will not arise. The ordinary course of the law would be open to him, but, if it is not a duty cast upon him by the law, I do not know what is to be done. But I do not think we need discuss the question, because if a dispute arose as to the character of the theological teaching, and
  1068
  an appeal was made to the Bishop as to whether or not it was in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England, is it conceivable that any Bishop of the Church would refuse to do his duty in that respect?
  LORD BURGHCLEREasked whether, in addition to the appeal to the Bishop, there was also an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as in other matters connected with the Church.
  THE OF HALSBURY: No.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERexplained that he had received a telegram from the Bishop of London who was ill and confined to bed. It was therefore not from any indisposition to take part in the discussion on the Bill that he was absent; nor could he have known that the noble Earl was going to bring up this matter. He could not answer for the Bishop of London on the points raised, but he imagined that any action that the Bishop might take, or abstain from taking, in the affairs of a parish in relation to things in which his intervention was perfectly voluntary, had nothing whatever to do with his formal action in official matters.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he would not have addressed their Lordships again on this matter if the question had not been raised by others. But, as the subject was under discussion, there were two or three things he desired to say, because he did not think it was consistent with his duty to say things outside the House of Lords which he did not say inside He made one more earnest appeal to the Government to consider whether they would not do something to preserve the clergy's right of entry into their schools. The Bill was certain to provoke a great deal of friction. If it passed they would all do their best to make it work, but surely, in the interests of the Government and of the Bill itself, it was desirable that as far as possible the causes of friction should be removed; The Amendment would not remove his objection to the Clause, but it would be an improvement. It had been said that this Clause had not been introduced in

  1069
  the interests of education or to safeguard the rights of denominational schools, but in order, as by a side wind, to attack a certain section of the clergy. He did not think the noble Earl could really have intended to do so, but by implication he had applied to these clergy the names of "cheats" and "smugglers." In regard to that the noble Earl might very well make some such apology as did the Bishop of Hereford with regard to the Episcopal Bench. If it were necessary to proceed against these clergy, it would be more honourable on the part of the Government to proceed against them directly than to penalise the whole for the sake of a few of the clergy of the Church of England, and to do an act of grave injustice to the whole of the Roman Catholic body in England. If the Government, in the exercise of their discretion, did not think it prudent to introduce a second edition of the Public Worship Regulation Act, it was hardly consistent to do by a side wind what they thought it unwise to attempt directly.
  As to the Episcopate, everything that had happened in connection with the Bill showed the extreme imprudence of the course they had taken. They were warned at the time by their friends against bringing in the Clause for the two-thirds of the managers, and it had been proved that it was intended by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause to put the religious instruction in denominational schools under the control of those who might not belong to the Church of England. Was it too much to ask their Lordships, whatever arrangements they might have made with the Government, to stand up and say that these things were not consistent with the principles of the Church of England? What had been the consequence of their action? They had had to appeal to the Government to undo that for which they themselves were partly responsible, and had met with a denial. The price the Church had had to pay for the mistake of the Bishops was the sacrifice of the rights of the whole of the English clergy, and also of the whole Catholic body in England. He fully admitted—in fact it could not be otherwise, as none were infallible—that here and there mistakes had been made by the clergy, though
  1070
  the noble Duke himself had admitted that they were few and far between. But, whatever he might think with regard to those mistakes, he would cut off his right hand before he would help to throw to the lions, as was here being done, those who had been unjustly attacked. And what lions they were! The Bishops had been very sensitive as to the things said about the Episcopal Bench; they knew how perfectly unjust had been the attacks voiced by Dr. Clifford and others. Only two days before, he had received the parody of a hymn, entitled "The Church's New Foundation," in which the Episcopate were represented as rejoicing at the strain put upon Nonconformists, and as caring about nothing but gold. Everyone knew that such statements were untrue. But exactly the same kind of thing had been said about certain of the clergy, also for ulterior and political purposes. Very often a half truth was a whole lie. Those who were now being attacked were the representatives of Pusey and Keble. Every day of his life Dr. Pusey celebrated Holy Communion in his own house at Christ Church. That was the kind of thing that would now be represented throughout the country, for the purpose of casting odium on certain of the clergy who were among the most hard-working in the Church, as "solitary masses," and so forth. Mr. Keble left it on record, in a letter to Sir John Coleridge in 1841, that he thought one of the things most to be deplored in the administration of the Church of England was the way in which her authorities had allowed habitual and systematic confession to fall into disuse. Whether they thought Dr. Pusey and Mr. Keble right or wrong, they could not draw a distinction between their teaching and the teaching of the clergy who were now being unjustly attacked. It was admitted on all sides that Dr. Pusey and Mr. Keble did an enormous work for the Church of England, and all he would say further was that, by the course the House were taking, they were building the tombs of the prophets and stoning their children.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDcould not follow the relevancy of the speech of the noble Viscount to the Amendment

  1071
  under discussion, nor did he think that the allegations of attacks on the clergy were upheld by the facts. No one in the House had attacked the clergy of the Church of England. All who lived in rural districts appreciated the proper and due influence of the clergy, and there was no desire whatever to attack their rightful authority or supremacy. What they wished was that that authority and supremacy should be won by worth and work, and not be created simply by an Act of Parliament by which the clergy were placed over the heads of the laity. That would be clericalism of the worst description, and it was that that the noble Viscount was supporting. He wished the noble Viscount would recollect that it was that kind of arrogant demand for clerical supremacy that had destroyed one Church in this country, and, if his views should ever prevail, would not destroy but certainly wound the Church of England, and reduce it to a level of inutility. The House were entitled to protest against the charge of attacking the clergy of the Church. What they wished to do was to give them the fullest opportunity of doing good amongst particular communities, but not to give them the fictitious supremacy resulting from an Act of Parliament, by which they were placed in a position abhorrent to the feelings of the people of the country.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERthought it would not be right to allow what bad been said to pass without notice. He thought the noble Lord hardly knew what the currents of feeling were, if he did not realise that, quite apart from the question of party, it was widely felt as an injury done to the clergy at large that any group of managers should be able to withhold from an incumbent the power to teach in his own school. Instances had been given in the debate of how easily that might be done from motives of spite, or motives of difference of opinion on questions like temperance, which had no relation whatever to the matters which had now been again introduced into the debate. He must own that he was greatly surprised that the noble Viscount should not only have again raised this question, which he was well entitled to do, but should have carried them so far afield as he had done.
  1072
  He could not follow him into the topics which he, had raised, and he would be sorry to do so, though he must confess, if he spoke his candid mind, that he regarded it as not altogether surprising that a person who held the opinions which the noble Viscount held should have been stung by some of the words spoken the other night in debate, which certainly had little enough to do with the Bill as an Education Bill. But the noble Viscount had said one thing which touched the Bill, and as it affected the conduct of the Episcopal Bench, he would just refer to it. The noble Viscount had charged the Bishops with committing a great mistake and a great imprudence in assenting to the Clause which gave two-thirds of the managers to the original denomination to which the school belonged, and left one-third to the public authority. He would say nothing on the merits of the Clause, or the wisdom of the action of the Bishops, but it was a matter of public notoriety, quoted not once but ten times in the course of this debate, that the decision was one which was come to by the whole representative body of the Church, so far as the Church at present had one, for it was part of the resolution of the Joint Committee of Convocation. His impression also was that it was acquiesced in by the Houses of Laymen. He was not saying what the value of the recommendation might be; he was simply saying that the Bishops were not acting on their individual responsibility, but as the mouthpieces of the whole body, as far as it was constitutionally organised. The noble Viscount had charged them with imprudence. Under the category of imprudence there might be other things to say.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "Page 6, line 14, after 'section' to insert as a new sub-Section, ' Any transfer of a public elementary school to or from a local education authority shall for the purposes of this Section be treated as the provision of a new school.'" —(The Lord President.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that if he was right in his interpretation this was a somewhat important proviso. It laid down that the transfer of a school was to be treated as the provision of a new school, and would bring into operation.

  1073
  all the provisions in regard to the setting up of a new school as set out in Clause 8. He asked whether the proviso was to be in addition to, or in substitution of the powers given under Clause 23 of the Act of 1870. To put a concrete case, suppose a voluntary school in poor circumstances, by taking advantage of the Transfer Clause of the Act of 1870, had transferred itself to the School Board, and had been carried on by the board for four or five years. Owing to the better financial position in which it would be placed by this Bill in being maintained by the rates, that school might ask to be re-transferred, and all the conditions of setting up a new school would come into force. In such a case, there would be a transfer under the Act of 1870, with the consent of the managers, but under the proviso of the noble Duke the ten ratepayers would come in, and, although having nothing on earth to do with the voluntary school, might stop the re-transfer. He desired to know whether he was right in his interpretation of the proviso, because, if so, it made a considerable difference in the matter of the transfer of schools, and completely altered the Act of 1870.
  THE Duke OF DEVONSHIRE: The transfer of a denominational school to the local education authority on the one hand, or the re-transfer to a body of denominational managers of a school previously transferred to a School Board on the other, would have the effect of substituting an undenominational for a denominational school in the one case, and of substituting a denominational for an undenominational school in the other. It appears to be in accordance with the principle of the Bill, that the same safeguards as are provided by the Clause for the erection of new schools should apply to these cases of transfer or re-transfer. I understand that the Prime Minister in the House of Commons promised, in so many words, that Clause 24 of the Act of 1870. which deals with re-transfers, should be repealed. Since then, however, it has been considered that the matter would be better dealt with by an Amendment such as I am now proposing; consequently, it will not be necessary to repeal the Clause referred to. I think that is the point, is it not?
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Yes. I merely wanted to know whether it was in addition to, or in substitution of, the provision of the Act of 1870.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 12."—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, who had given notice of a series of Amendments by which the Board of Education would be enabled to compel the local education authority to provide such additional public school accommodation as the Board thought necessary for higher as well as elementary education, in moving the first, pointed out that under the Bill there was no penalty against ignorant or reactionary authorities who might refuse to put into operation the powers given them for the purpose of assisting higher education. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment so that some machinery should be provided by which to prevent authorities breaking with impunity the clear intention of the Bill.
  Amendment moved:
  "After Clause 16, page 10, insert ' Part IV. (General).' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid it is impossible to assent to this Amendment; in fact, I have an Amendment down to Clause 17 in exactly the opposite direction. I propose to make it clear that the provisions of Clause 17 apply only to the failure on the part of the authority to provide the necessary amount of elementary school accommodation. The question was raised in Committee by my noble friend, Lord Harris, as to whether the provision as to mandamus and so on would apply to a County Council in the event of their failing to provide the necessary amount of secondary school accommodation. That certainly was not the intention, and although we do not think it is contained in the Bill, I propose to make it clear by the insertion of certain words in Clause 17. Under the Bill as it stands the duties of the local education authority in respect of secondary education are confined to consultation with the Board of Education, and to taking such

  1075
  steps, as, after that consultation, the authority may deem to be desirable. That being the intention of the Bill, it would be absurd to propose to proceed by mandamus to compel a person to do what he thinks necessary.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 10, line 12, after 'accommodation,' to insert 'within the meaning of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to insert new sub-Sections requiring a local education authority to provide such officers, servants, buildings, furniture, and other things as were necessary for the execution of the duties of any education committee established by them, and to pay the expenses of executing those duties; and providing that any officer appointed by the Board of Education might attend any meeting of an education committee and take part in the proceedings, but not have a right to vote. He explained that the object of the first proposal was to help the education committee by forcing the local education authority to provide the necessary officers for the execution of the duties laid upon it. It was not unlikely that a County Council would be a reactionary body, and he proposed to import into the Bill a section from the Government measure of 1896, with the hope that His Majesty's Ministers, having thought such a provision necessary in 1896, would consider it necessary in 1902. The second proposal had for its object co-ordination. There had been much talk of the co-ordination of the various local authorities, but the object of the second part of his Amendment was to secure the co-ordination of the local authority with the Board of Education. The co-ordination of the local authorities would be incomplete and insufficient unless at the same time the Board of Education knew what was going on. The Government, by assenting to the Amendment, would enable not only the Board of Education to know what was being done by the local authorities,
  1076
  but also the local authorities to know the aim and policy of the Board of Education. As these sub-Sections were entirely practical and in no sense controversial, he hoped the Government would accept them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 36, after sub-Section (2) to insert the following new sub-Sections: (3) A local education authority shall provide such officers, servants, buildings, furniture and other things as are necessary for the execution of the duties of any education committee established by them, and shall pay the expenses of executing those duties. (4) Any officer appointed in that by the Board of Education may attend any meeting of an education committee, and take part in the proceedings, but shall not have a right to vote.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Both of these provisions are quite unnecessary. The expenses of the education committee will be the expenses of the Council, and it is not in the least necessary to enact that the Council should provide such officers as are necessary, as that is the duty of the education authority without any special provision. As to the proposal that any officer appointed by the Board of Education should be able to attend any meeting of an education committee, I do not think it would be desirable to give the Board of Education the power of intruding, by means of these officers, upon the meetings of these committees. It is perfectly open to the Board of Education to suggest that one of their officers should have an opportunity of consulting the committee, and it is still more probable that the committee would desire the attendance of such an officer; but I do not think it necessary, expedient, or scarcely decent, that the Board of Education should have the power of sending an officer against the wish of the committee to take part in its deliberations.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that in London there were in various schools correspondents or clerks with whom the central authority kept in touch. If that was found desirable in London, it would probably be far more so in the country, as otherwise the central authority would not know what was going on in the various schools.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 39, to leave out ' who shall also,' and insert 'and the persons so appointed shall.'"—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *VISCOUNT LLANDAFF, in moving an Amendment to provide for the nomination of representatives on the education committees by "associations of voluntary schools approved for that purpose by the Board of Education," apologised for recurring to the question, but the words introduced by the Government during the Committee stage, for which he was extremely grateful, did not quite realise the hopes that had been entertained after the statement of the Prime Minister on the point in another place. The present effect of the Clause was that the scheme of the County Council should, where it appeared desirable—he presumed that meant where it appeared desirable to the Council—include a nominee of the Voluntary Schools Association. He was afraid, however, that a great many County Councils would not consider it desirable to have on their education committees representatives of Roman Catholic schools. He was fully aware that there was a kind of appeal to the Board of Education, inasmuch as the Board had to approve of the scheme. The Board might say to a County Council, "We think you ought to include a representative of the Association of Roman Catholic Schools," but that would be a very undesirable task to throw upon them. It was not easy for the Board of Education to interfere with the deliberate opinion of such a body as a County Council, and to say, "Although you think it is not desirable, we think it is, and we should use compulsion to have it inserted in the scheme." By the Amendment he now proposed, however, the Board of Education would be masters of the situation in the first instance, without running counter to the decision or opinion of the County Council. If, for instance, the Board thought that in a particular county or borough, because the Catholic schools were not sufficiently numerous or important, or because of any other circumstance, there was no need of a special representative, all they would have to say was, "We will not approve of any association for the purpose
  1078
  of nominating a member of the education committee in this district." On the other hand, where they thought it desirable, they would approve of an association, and that association would have the right, without reference to the opinion of the County Council, to nominate a member. He attached considerable importance to the Amendment. It would give the right to nominate, not to all associations of voluntary schools, but only to such associations as the Board of Education approved, and the Board need approve of an association only in those instances in which they thought a representative should be on the committee to prevent injustice being done.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 1, after 'nomination' to insert ' of associations of voluntary schools approved for that purpose by the Board of Education, and"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE Duke OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid it is impossible to go further in this matter than we have already done. I am informed that any further concession in the direction of providing representation on these bodies of small denominational minorities would be likely to excite a great deal of jealousy and opposition on the part of the other House of Parliament. I conceive that this matter must, in the end, be a matter of administration and arrangement between the county authorities and the Board of Education. It would be, in the first instance, for the county authority to propose a scheme for the formation of its education committee. I do not apprehend that there will be, generally speaking, such indisposition on the part of those authorities to give fair and adequate representation on the committees to any denominational minority. If they neglect to make such provision, and if the Board of Education think that the interests of any minority are disregarded, it will be the duty of the Board of Education to suggest a way in which they think that representation ought to be given. The matter must then be settled between the Board of Education and the authority, and having suggested, as the Government have suggested in the Bill, that the representation of associations of schools may be a very desirable way of accomplishing this object,

  1079
  I do not think it is possible to go further in the direction of imposing on the county authority a provision which they may be unwilling to accept.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought there was one point which ought to be cleared up. When this subject was under discussion in Committee, some doubt arose as to how far County and Borough Councils would have the power of refusing to accept any person who was nominated by these other bodies. The noble Duke was not altogether clear on this subject, but he found that in another place it was distinctly stated that the Councils would have it entirely in their power to reject a given person nominated by the other bodies. He would like to know if they were to understand that, after consideration, that was the view adopted by the Government.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think it would be rather inexpedient for me to attempt to give a decision as to the exact meaning of these words. If the noble Lord thinks any- point is obscure, I conceive it is for him to suggest some Amendment. No answer that I can give will read anything into the provisions of the Bill which they do not already contain.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEreminded the noble Duke that he moved an Amendment suggesting the substitution of the word "recommendation" for "nomination,'" so as to make it quite clear that the County Council had the right of refusing, and that the Amendment was not accepted by the Government.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The County Council will not have the power to reject the nominee unless the person nominated is obviously disqualified for the position.
  *LORD REAYpointed out that this interpretation was exactly the opposite of that given to "appointment on the nomination" in another place.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYthought they ought to be quite clear on this point. As he understood the Clause, it was that the appointment of these nominees was to be under a scheme proposed by the local education authority and approved
  1080
  by the Board of Education. If, under the scheme, the nomination by certain bodies was provided for, the local education authority would have no option of refusing the persons who might be nominated. That he understood to be the meaning of the Clause.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to insert the words "to the Council" after the word "desirable," so as to remove any doubt as to what it was-exactly that the phrase, "where it appears desirable," meant.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 2, after 'desirable,' insert ' to the Council.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment will place the selection of "other bodies" entirely in the hands of the Council, and will prevent the Board of Education from exercising effectual supervision in the interests of minorities and may possibly lead to local friction.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that according to the opinion expressed in Committee by the Lord Chancellor, the words were necessary. He did not understand the answer, but he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 14, line 15, after ' county,' insert ' any of.' "—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 14, line 17, leave out ' under this Act,' and insert' so relinquished.' "—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved the insertion of a new Clause providing that, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, the County or Borough Council might, if they thought it desirable, make attendance at a

  1081
  reasonable number of continuation classes compulsory, either over the whole of their area or over any specified portion of it, for young persons under seventeen years of age and no longer attending school or receiving other equivalent instruction. His desire was that the noble Duke should accept the Clause and send it down for discussion in the other House as one of their educational ideals. He knew nothing that was so much needed as something of this kind. As things stood at present, they sent out their boys, on the average at about twelve years of age, into a sort of no-man's educational land, and they did not know what became of a great many of them. To say nothing of the waste involved, in the country many of these boys were a great source of anxiety to the clergy and to all who wished well to the community, while in the towns there was no such source of hooliganism as the children who, at twelve or thirteen years of age, went no man knew where. These were the most critical years, very often, of a boy's life—the most impressionable and teachable years if they kept these lads within good influences; and yet they left them to drift away just at the age when they were carefully inquiring about the best schools and the best influences for their own sons.
  Again, to look at the question from another point of view, from every platform lamentations were heard as to the loss of trade and industry this country was suffering, but as long as the present system went on that loss was inevitable. He quoted from a Yellow-book issued by the Education. Department showing how the question stood between us and Germany. For instance, a distinguished educationist in Berlin, who was not an advocate of universal compulsion, said that amid the development of civilisation among the nations the idea of the continuation school was making its way with increasing strength; that, urgently required by the conditions of social organisation, and, in its turn, acting on them, the new institution appeared in many forms, and took its place side by side with the church and the school. Then again, Mr. Dale, the distinguished principal of Liverpool College, and a son of the
  1082
  late Dr. Dale of Birmingham, reminded the Department in his report on education in Saxony that in 1891 an Imperial law was passed in Germany, under which masters in any branch of industry were bound, in the case of their workers under the age of eighteen to allow their attendance at institutions recognised by the authorities of their district as continuation schools, and to allow them the time fixed as necessary for instruction by the authorities. Municipal authorities were free to adopt that law, and attendance at continuation classes had consequently been made compulsory in eight of the German States; and no excuse for absence from such instruction was to be held valid except personal sickness or contact with infectious disease. In Saxony there was a population of 3,780,000, and about 91,000 scholars attended the continuation schools. In Würtembuig, with a population of 2,000,000, the number of girls attending the schools was larger than the boys; but there were 100,000 young persons attending the evening continuation schools. It was not surprising, in view of these efforts in education, that the industry and commerce of Germany should be forging ahead. The population of Saxony and Würtembuig was probably not much, greater than that of Condon and the surrounding districts, hut there was an enormous difference as regarded the number of young persons under systematic and regular instruction. He hoped the Amendment would receive the sympathetic consideration of the House. His Motion in Committee was sympathetically supported by Viscount Goschen and Lord James of Hereford, but it was urged that the new authority should he allowed an opportunity of "feeling its feet." His Amendment would leave the Councils a perfectly free hand, without imposing any additional burdens upon them, and surely they could feel their feet just as easily if they had their hands free. County Councils were not educational infants just learning to walk. He had received letters from them asking him to press this matter, and promising to make some reasonable experiments. He believed it was true conservatism to allow local bodies, where circumstances required it, a free hand to make wise, careful, and beneficent experiments of this description, and he hoped the House would support his proposal.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 22, to insert as a new Clause: 'Subject to the approval of the Board of Education, the County or Borough Council may. if they think it desirable, make attendances at a reasonable number of continuation classes compulsory, either over the whole of their area or over any specified portion of it. for young persons under seventeen years of age and no longer attending school or receiving other equivalent instruction."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This is really a proposal, with certain limitations, to extend the Act for compulsory attendance of children at school from the age of fourteen to the age of seventeen. Now this may be an extremely desirable subject for your Lordships or the other House of Parliament to discuss on any suitable opportunity, but I submit that that opportunity is not the present one. This Bill is quite large enough. It deals with most important questions of the reorganisation of education authority and the management of schools, but it does not profess, and I think it would have been very unwise if its framers had proposed that it should profess, to alter in any degree the law as to school attendance. That is a great deal too large a question to be added to the already large and important questions which are dealt with in this Bill. If the Bill, when it was introduced into the other House, had contained such a provision as this,] venture to say that it would have occupied not only a period of eight months in discussion, but it would probably have been discussed over a period of twelve months. Therefore without expressing an opinion as to the desirability of a great extension of the age of compulsory attendance, I venture to think that your Lordships will not think it necessary at the present time to discuss the proposal that has been made by the right rev. Bishop. The County Council, although I believe that, as the right rev. Prelate has said, they are tolerably well prepared already to deal with questions of education which may come before them, would, I am quite sure, prefer that they should obtain some experience of the new duties which are imposed upon them and should obtain some familiarity with the kind of work which is now for the first time being
  1084
  entrusted to them, before they wished to be asked to consider a question so important and far reaching as this. I venture to think, therefore, that it is unnecessary. I trust the House will not be disposed to discuss this question at length upon this Amendment.
  *EARL SPENCER: I only wish to say two or three words upon this Amendment. I confess that I think there is a great deal of force in what the noble Duke says as to the very large nature of the proposal that the right rev. Prelate has brought before us; no doubt it is a great innovation, and perhaps this is a late time to introduce it in the Bill, on Report of Amendments in Committee. But I should like to point out that this is a permissive arrangement; it is not compulsory on County Councils to do this; and I for one am glad that the right rev. Prelate has called attention to the matter, because I think that one of the greatest blots that we have in our educational system in this country is the falling back from what the children have learnt at elementary schools when they are put very early to work, and that really should be remedied by giving power to compel the children to go to continuation schools. It is a matter of the utmost importance, and therefore although I hardly think the right rev. Prelate should persevere with hi Amendment now, I am very glad that he introduced it, and J hope that in the near future this very important matter will be taken up and some satisfactory solution be proposed for it.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 41, to leave out from the first 'education' to the end of the sub-Section."—(The Lord President.)
  *LORD REAY: This is an extremely important Amendment. The words in the sub-Section, "where any part of the education given is other than instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic," were introduced in another place on the 28th November under the Closure Rule. Therefore they have never been discussed.

  1085
  When I rose in Committee to discuss them, the noble Duke asked me to defer my observations until the Report stage. I think your Lordships will admit that discusion is fully justified. These words which the noble Duke proposes to omit are of a most extraordinary nature. They do not even go as far as the Code of 1871, in which Code 4s. was given for each pass in reading, writing and arithmetic, but in addition 3s. was given for each pass in any two other subjects. In 1871 it was considered desirable that in a day school more than reading, writing, and arithmetic should be taught. Now it is quite true that the words "evening school" are used and not the words "evening continuation school." Perhaps it was intended to substitute for an evening continuation school or an evening preparatory school, because that is the only school in which, 1 should think, such instruction, limited to reading, writing, and arithmetic, might be useful. I cannot understand why in an elementary evening school you should not at all events be allowed to teach the same subjects which are prescribed for the elementary day school in the Code It seems to me quite clear that an evening school will be frequented by those who have left the day school, and if the day school has not altogether failed in its object then you must presuppose that at all events in reading, writing, and arithmetic the children are so far proficient that you can teach them the other subjects which can be taught in the day schools according to the last Code. I need only mention three subjects—Latin, French, and German—which can be taught in the day school, and which would be excluded under this strange proviso. I can well understand that these words reading, writing, and arithmetic — are to be deleted. They are a travesty of the admirable work hitherto performed in evening continuation schools. They are of such a nature that they seem to take us back to the dark ages. I suppose that by the Amendment all evening schools are to be made a part of secondary education. Now, what is the result of this transfer of elementary teaching in evening schools to Part II. of this Bill? Hitherto you have had unlimited power of rating for elementary evening schools.
  1086
  In future in counties this power will be restricted under the well known limit of 2d., with the unlikely addition to the rate mentioned in sub-Section 1 of Clause 2, and with the addition of Id. under Clause 3 in non-county boroughs or urban districts. It is quite clear that you impose a limitation on the creation and financial support of elementary evening schools which does not exist at present, and although, to make attendance at evening schools compulsory, the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate on Clause 4 was negatived, I think that it may be held, as was pointed out in Committee by two noble Lords on the other side, that the creation of elementary evening schools should not be made difficult, but made as easy as possible. Under this Amendment, undoubtedly, difficulties will arise. You will not allow elementary evening schools to be independently constituted.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Why not?
  LORD REAY: You take them out of Part III. of this Bill. What will be the result? The Government—and for that concession I am grateful—accept the age limit of sixteen; but if you draw the line at sixteen that strengthens the case in favour of allowing evening schools to remain under the elementary provisions of this Bill. Take London. In London, a child of twelve years passing the 7th standard can be allowed to seek employment. Such a child, therefore, could go to an elementary evening school (if you leave it in the Bill) from twelve to sixteen. In Scotland, the Act of 1901 "to regulate the employment and attendance of children at school" provides in Section 3 that—
  "It shall be lawful for any School Board, where, after due inquiry in each case the circumstances seem to justify such exemption, to grant exemption from the obligation to attend school to individual children over twelve years of age, for such time and upon such conditions, if any, as to the amount and manner of further attendance at school until the age of fourteen, as the School Board shall think fit."
  In Scotland a child having obtained the merit certificate may be allowed to i seek employment, but the School Board J can impose the condition that it shall

  1087
  attend an evening continuation school. Such a proviso would have met to a great extent the object contemplated by the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on Clause 4. 1 would urge the noble Duke to accept the Amendment of the Bishop of Hereford on this sub-Section, which leaves the elementary evening schools in the Bill under exactly the same conditions as the day schools.
  *THE LORD BISHOP of HEREFORD: I confess that in the interests of the education of these young children, I greatly prefer my own Amendment to that of the noble Duke, and I had hoped that inasmuch as my Amendment runs in the direction of the Code for elementary education, it might have commended itself to the Government. In Section 35 of the instructions issued to inspectors under the Code there is a direct encouragement given for the teaching of certain specific subjects—the subjects there in described as subjects "which seem most appropriate to the industrial and other needs of the district." That is just the kind of elementary subject which will be valuable to these children on leaving school—elementary subjects which are suitable to them in common life. It is just by that kind of teaching that in many parts of the continent you have towns growing up, with their own special industries, bringing them up to great perfection. I had hoped that some satisfactory Amendment would have been adopted, but the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke amounts to nothing less, if I understand it, than to transferring the whole of our evening continuation system to the category of secondary school teaching. I think that this is practically a great mistake to make, and I feel that it is a mistake in this respect that it tends to impoverish the teaching power of continuation schools, because it brings us in our rural districts under the operation of the 2d. rate. As a matter of fact, the County Councils will have hardly anything to spend on continuation schools unless they go for leave, and I do not know whether they will get leave or not it is putting a spoke in the wheel of the continuation school machinery, and
  1088
  making it more difficult for a County Council to do its work than it otherwise would be. I greatly regret this change. I do not know how it may act in boroughs, because there they have a free hand with regard to expenditure, but in my own district it must inevitably act as a deterrent. There is just one other remark I would venture to make, and that is that, seeing that it has been held up to us that one of the main objects of this Bill is to create one authority for these different grades of education, the elementary and the secondary education (though you may call it by two different names it is all part of one system of education and all in the hands of one authority) then what in the world is the necessity for such extremely careful and minute delimitation? Why not leave the authority more freedom as to the exact limitation between one kind of instruction and another? You may depend upon it that if you wish to have the work well done it is best to give a free hand to the men whose duty it is to do it, and all these hampering conditions only tend to make the machine something like a cogwheel machine which will never run freely.
  *EARL SPENCER: As I read the Clause, if the words the noble Duke proposes to leave out are left out, it would mean simply this—that in a rural village, far away from any secondary school, it will be impossible in an evening school to carry on elementary education at all. That seems to me the simple meaning of the proposal of the continuation classes—it would throw the education under the other authority. I think that that would be a very serious matter. If these words are omitted the sub-Section will read—
  "In this Act and in the Elementary Education Acts the expression 'elementary school' shall not include any school carried on as an evening school under the regulations of the Hoard of Education."
  It seems to me quite clear that that would prevent any boys after they had finished their primary education going back to an evening school in their own parish—and they could not go further off than their own parish—to get this elementary education.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHappealed to the noble Duke to consider the Amendment standing next in the name of the Bishop of Hereford, namely to leave out "instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic" and insert "elementary instruction." If that Amendment were adopted it would prevent the misunderstanding the noble Earl had just pointed out might arise.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This is no doubt a very important and rather complicated question. The present Amendment, and some consequential Amendments which I propose to move, will restore the Clause more or less, if not entirely, to the proposals made in the original Bill, but which were modified in Committee in the House of Commons. The matter is so complicated that I think I had better read a short statement of what I believe will be the state of the case after these Amendments are adopted. The new authorities, whether county or borough, as the successors of the School Boards, will be the elementary authorities over the whole country, and they are bound to supply public elementary day schools and to provide elementary instruction in them under the Education Code, whether the schools are provided by them or not: and they are obliged to provide that instruction for all children up to the end of their fifteenth year. The funds at the disposal of the authorities for this purpose are the grants by the Board of Education and an unlimited rate. But the purposes to which that rate can be applied are strictly limited to those which I have stated. The same authorities, however, are the successor's of the authorities existing under the Technical Instruction Acts, but with extended and larger powers; and, as such, it will be their duty to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary, and this duty includes the provision of elementary education for' all persons over 15 years of age. But this duty is not compulsory upon them, and is to be performed only within the limits of their own discretion. For this latter purpose the funds at their disposal are the grants of the Board of Education and a rate, unlimited in county boroughs and limited in counties to 2d. or such higher rate as, with the assent of the Local. Government Board, they may think fit.
  1090
  Now, my Lords, after that I do not understand why the noble Earl opposite thinks that it would be impossible for a boy after he has left school to continue to be educated in an evening continuation school. The evening continuation school, no doubt, cannot be provided for out of the unlimited rate which the county authority has to spend, but it will be in the power of the county authority to provide, and it will be their duty, after consultation with the Board of Education, to provide such evening continuation schools, and of such a character—including evening schools in which the instruction is purely elementary—as in their judgment they may think necessary to continue the education of scholars who have left the day elementary schools. I have endeavoured to make this point as clear as I can. We believe that under the proposals of the right rev. Prelate we should be involving ourselves in all those difficulties and complications which produced the Cockerton case, and we believe that it is more simple and more advantageous to draw a clear line of distinction between those duties which are to be discharged by the education authority, and I which can be provided for out of the unlimited rate, and those which are optional and which are to be provided for out of the limited rate. I think that the authorities will not find any difficulty in carrying out the plan thus simplified, and I believe that on the whole it will be found to be the best solution of this question. If I fail to make the intention of the Amendment clear, perhaps, although it might be irregular, I might be permitted to give a further explanation to your Lordships.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I think the House will admit that the question is an exceedingly complicated one, and the very short time that we have had the noble Lord's Amendment in our hands has made it very difficult for us to understand what it means.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: We go back very nearly to the original proposal of the Bill as introduced.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: As I understand, the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Reay is correct, that

  1091
  the boys who want to get elementary education in the evening schools would practically come under higher education; is that so 1
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: That being so, it is obvious that the rate which can be levied to help them is the limited rate, not the unlimited rate.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is unlimited in the boroughs.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: But I am talking of the county schools. In our point of view this is a most important matter in rural villages, in the case of boys of neglected education who wish to get on.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There is the grant.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: And it is not a hard and fast rule.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: In these schools what has really happened is this. Under your Amendments to this Bill, as I ventured to point out on the Second Reading, you brought about a great confusion in your finance and your managers. The occasion will arise when you have two sets of boys. One, boys who are backward and wish to get on, will be paid for out of the elementary education funds; and the other, boys who are trying to get more forward, will be paid for out of the higher education fund. That must lead to great complication and confusion. This Amendment of the noble Duke remedies that defect, but, at the same time, it does not meet our point, which is that you are not able to carry on these evening schools under the unlimited rate, but that you have to carry them on in the counties under the higher education rate.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It seems to me that the decision that the Government have come to, to introduce this new Amendment, is a very serious one, and is especially serious, I think, to us who are anxious about the secondary education of the country. The effect of this Amendment is undoubtedly to throw a still further duty on to the secondary education authority, and still further to reduce the funds at their disposal for the purposes of secondary education. I will put aside for the moment the question of the boroughs. It is true that the boroughs have the power of raising an unlimited rate. The counties have not such a power. The counties have at their disposal the whisky money and the 2d. rate if they choose to levy it. Before, the county authorities had only technical education to deal with, and for that purpose they had the whisky money to use; but you have enormously increased the area of the work of the county secondary authority. They have still to provide all that technical education, for which I think the whisky money was not at all too much, and they have to provide for all secondary education, and now you lay on them the further duty of providing elementary education of a continuation character.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They are doing it now.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: They cannot do it out of the whisky money.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Oh yes!
  THE DUKE OF NORTHBROOK: The law at present is perhaps open to some doubt; lawyers in one part of the country say one thing, and lawyers in another part say another thing; but as I understand it, the whisky money is only available for

  1093
  technical education, and is not available for elementary education reading, writing, and arithmetic.
  LORD TWKKDMOGTH: My noble friend was anxious apparently to explain the situation, but I believe my statement is perfectly right. The County Council authority at the present moment can use the whisky money for the purpose of technical education, and that largely includes secondary education, but they cannot apply the whisky money for the purpose of elementary education. I think I am right in that. I say, therefore, that by this Amendment you propose; to add enormously to the duties of the secondary education authorities in the counties, and you are not increasing the funds for that purpose. This Amendment also cuts out the Amendments proposed by the right rev. Prelate opposite. As the Bill stood, at any rate, secondary schools would include evening schools where reading, writing, and arithmetic were taught. That has been cut out. Now we wish, undoubtedly, that elementary education should receive rather a wider interpretation than being confined to the three Us; that also we are deprived of. I may say I think it is rather hard that a proposal of this sort should have been sprung upon us at this late hour of the day, on Report. It is all very well to say that this proposal existed in the original Bill as introduced into the House of Commons, but we were not cognisant of the Bill as it entered the House of Commons, and the time we have had before us in this House has certainly been an all too short one. I confidently expect that we shall get some support from the other side of the House from those who are anxious to see secondary education given as usefully and as completely as possible in our
  1094
  counties, and I hope that some noble Lords opposite and some of the right rev. prelates will assist us in opposing the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I would suggest, my Lords, that this is a Privilege Amendment; it lessens the elementary education rate, and it interferes with rating all over the country. The effect of the Amendment will be that a certain amount of the rate for elementary education will be transferred to the rate for secondary education, and as the rate for secondary education is limited the effect will be to limit the amount that is now payable under this Bill in respect of education.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I have complete sympathy with the wishes to which eloquent expression has been given by Lord Reay and by the Bishop of Hereford and other noble Lords, but I honestly fail to see why, if the Government Amendment is carried, it will be difficult—certainly it will not be impossible—to carry on to a far greater degree than at present the continuation work which is referred to. The expression has constantly been used today that only an absolutely limited rate can in future be levied in the county. I speak under correction, but surely it is in the power of any County Council who wishes to levy a heavier rate to obtain leave from the Local Government Board to do so. The Borough Council, we all admit, is unlimited, but the County Council is limited to this extent—that it cannot go beyond the limit laid down without applying to the Local Government Board; but if the County Council desire to raise money further in that way it can go to the Local

  1095
  Government Board for leave. But, my Lords, will the County Council really require more than this 2d. rate even if it extends by many times what is being done at present for this particular purpose 1 I should be surprised if it were so. I believe I am right in saying that at this moment in evening continuation schools in London itself, where the boys and girls learn Spanish, mensuration, Italian, and an immense variety of scientific and other subjects, it has never reached a halfpenny. The amount that can be raised in the borough is unlimited. The amount that can be raised in the county is practically unlimited too, provided that you have the approval of the Local Government Board. Therefore, it does not seem to me that the dangers apprehended from this Amendment are as great as are supposed, and I for one do not take part in the gloomy prophecies made as to how this will operate on secondary education.
  THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: Might I ask the noble Duke whether the effect of this Amendment will be to prevent a boy who cannot read or write being taught reading, writing, and arithmetic in the evening continuation school?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I should like to ask whether there is not this difference.
  Hitherto it has been compulsory on the part of the County Council to provide elementary education, and, therefore, if it is necessary to have evening schools for the purpose of elementary education, it is compulsory on the body to provide those evening schools. Now, if you make these evening schools part of secondary education, the optional character which has often been pointed out in these debates—the optional character which rests, by Section 2, on the local education authority to provide secondary education—remains. The noble Duke said it was their duty. All their duty is to consider and take such steps as may seem to them desirable, which is very far short of compulsory powers extending to evening schools.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): The simple answer to my noble friend's question is this, that it never was compulsory to provide evening schools. I can only confirm what the right rev. Prelate said just now. The whole argument of the Opposition has turned on the supposed limitation of the county rate for higher education. There is no such limitation—only that before going beyond 2d. in the £ the local authority must obtain the consent of the Local Government Board.
  On Question, "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:— Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 58.

  CONTENTS.

  Breadalbane, M.

  Spencer, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Burghclere, L,

  Coleridge, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tweedmonth, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Welby, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Selborne, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Dunmore, E. (E. Dunmore.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Ellen borough, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Camden, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Forester, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  James, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Knutsford, V)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Lindley, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Manchester, L. Bp.

  Middleton, L.

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

  Newcastle, L. Bp.

  Robertson, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Saltoun, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Lathom, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E Galloway.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Morley, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Belper, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Romney, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 15, lines 5 and 6, to leave out 'or in evening schools which are elementary schools'; in lines 7 and 8 to leave out 'of not more than fifteen years of age.'"—(The Lord President.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 15, line 8, to leave out from 'school' to 'provided,' in line 10, and insert, 'who at the close of the school year will not be more than sixteen years of age.'"—(The Lord President.)
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked whether this Amendment really extended the age from fifteen to sixteen years.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: A boy can remain till such time as that, at the close of the school year, he is not more than sixteen years.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, this Clause 23 has been made, in the course of the discussion in the other House, the repository of all sorts of miscellaneous provisions, and it will conduce very much to the clearness of the Bill to arrange that the Clause shall be cut up into three separate Clauses. That, I understand, can be done in reprinting the Bill, and it does not require any formal Amendment now.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 19, line 34, after 'education' insert 'including any' powers, duties, property, or rights conferred, vested, or arising under any local Act or trust deed'; in page 21, lines 15 and 16, leave out 'and pay at such times and

  1099
  in such manner as they think fit'; in line 17, after 'year,' insert 'and may pay any Parliamentary grant which has accrued before the appointed day at such times and in such manner as they think fit'; in line 18, leave out 'earned by,' and insert, 'payable to'; in line 26, after 'purposes,' insert 'provided that the Board of Education may, if they think fit, pay any share of the aid grant under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, allotted to an association of voluntary schools to the governing body of that association, if such governing body satisfy the Board of Education that proper arrangements have been made for the application of any sum so paid.'"—(The Lord President.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH, in moving to insert in page 22, line 26, after the word "officers" the words "or teachers" said: The only argument of a practical nature that I can use for the insertion of these words is that if this grievance is one which the House of Commons would think fit to remedy, the insertion of this Amendment would give them the opportunity of doing so. The grievance is one which is very much felt. It has excited a good deal of attention and feeling of unjust treatment among the teachers in voluntary and elementary schools, and I have no doubt it was due to the late hour at which the matter came on the other night that I, and, I think, other Members of the House, hardly understood the explanation given by the noble Duke. As I understand it, the argument was that the teachers in board schools are transferred from one authority to another, whereas the teachers in elementary voluntary schools remain under the same authority as they have been under before. I do not think your Lordships will consider that that is any answer to the case put forward. This is a grievance that is very much felt
  1100
  amongst this class of teachers, and it would be a great benefit if the conditions under which this provision has been forced upon them could be better explained than it was at a late hour the other night.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I think this is a subject the importance of which is exaggerated strangely out of doors, judging from the fact that half the elementary teachers in voluntary schools seem to be at this moment under the idea that they are going to suffer some special grievance from the provisions contained in this Schedule. The subject seems to be a little complicated, and I may state what I understand to be the explanation of it; then the noble Duke can say whether I am right or wrong. As I understand the position, it is this. The Local Government Acts which are referred to were passed with this object, that where a local authority changed its character and a new authority took the place of one which existed before, some arrangement must be made for compensating those officers who ipso facto by that change ceased to exist or passed out of office in some way or another. That would apply in a case where a School Board has its function as a School Board brought to an end; then any person like a School Board clerk, or some officer of that kind, who might not be taken on by the other Board would, under these Acts, receive compensation. The word "officers" is, under a School Board, taken to include teachers as well but as a matter of fact there will be no difference between board school teachers and voluntary school teachers as to the results which will follow from

  1101
  the present change. The board school teacher, although he is under a new authority, will go on exactly the same as he did before as a teacher, with a different paymaster, but with the same duties. On the other hand the voluntary school teacher will go on just as he did before, because the managers of the voluntary schools will still continue practically in office, though with a slight change in their manner of appointment. Therefore there is no real difference drawn between board school teachers and voluntary school teachers, and the only difference is that School Board clerks, and people of that kind, who are officers under the Board, may fail to be compensated if their services are not required by the new authority. If that explanation is right, I am sure it will be satisfactory to a great many of those who at present, imagine that they are under some grievance.
  *EARL SPENOER: The right rev. Prelate has explained what would happen on the transfer of a board school to the new local authority, and that the voluntary schools would be left as they are. But I would point out that there may be many voluntary schools where the owner transfers them to the new authority; then they would not remain under the same management. What would happen then? I understood the noble Duke the other night that under voluntary school arrangements these teachers had got a pension, and that that would continue. I do not know that that would be so in the case I now put. Suppose the noble Duke himself, or any noble Lord, transfers a school belonging to him to the local authority, then the teachers would not be under the same authority.
  THE LORD BISHOP of WINCHESTER: If I may interpose again, with the indulgence of the House, is not the noble Lord referring to something which exists at: present? This Bill cannot make any difference. What the noble Lord has instanced might occur today. The school might be transferred from the voluntary managers to the School Board, and the grievance hereafter will be no greater than it is today.
  THE Duke OF DEVONSHIRE: I will only say that I believe the right rev. Prelate has stated the case accurately. This Bill does not give any additional facilities for transfer.
  *EARL SPENCER: There will be a great many more transfers, I should think.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There may be, but not owing to anything that can be found in this Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Under the present law prosecutions for school attendance purposes can be authorised by two members of the School Board. Under the Bill two members of the education committee are substituted for two members of the School Board. It has been suggested that it might very often be difficult to get two members of the education committee. The school attendance work will in nearly every case be done by a sub-committee of the education committee, and it is proposed

  1103
  that two members of the sub-committee should be able to authorise prosecutions.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 23, line 16, after 'committee' to insert 'or of any sub-committee appointed by that committee for school attendance purposes.'"—(The Lord President.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to have precedence of the other notices and Orders of the Day, and to be printed as amended. (No. 201.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Heading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord Ashbourne): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to accord a second reading to this Bill, I need not remind any of your Lordships that a very important and long measure was passed relating to the Local Government of Ireland in 1898. That Act, subjected to the test of experience, has shown that it would be desirable in some particulars to make certain changes and Amendments. This Bill, to which I now ask your Lordships to give a second reading, does not deal, of course, with any large questions of policy, but it deals with some details of more or less importance. They are not a very large number. Your Lordships will find that those details are set out very fully in the various Clauses. Amendments are made in the provisions in reference to audit and surcharge items, giving further powers to the auditors, and giving also powers for increased contributions to county infirmaries to pay
  1104
  deputies for doctors under certain circumstances when they are on leave; and for stereotyping certain payments out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, a matter which is of considerable importance: and it also confers authority upon councils to meet half yearly instead of meeting quarterly in certain cases and under certain conditions, which seem to me to be carefully and satisfactorily framed. There is amongst other powers a power given to the County Councils to subscribe to meetings of associations of various County Councils which consider various matters of importance. Under these circumstances I ask your Lordships to accord the Bill a second reading, and I am sure your Lordships will not think it unreasonable that it should be put down for the Committee stage on Monday next.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  OSBORNE ESTATE BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  MAIL SHIPS BILL.
  House in Committee: (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered on Monday next in order to their being suspended for the remainder of the Session.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.