EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

HL Deb 19 November 1906 vol 165 cc296-367

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 9:—

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to omit the following provisions from subsection (2)— (b) If they are of opinion that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act is the best mode of giving effect to the trusts, they may by the scheme make provision for the purpose, subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters as the Commission think just, having regard to (i.) the grants or assistance, if any, received from public funds towards the building, enlargement, or improvement, or fitting up of the schoolhouse; (ii.) the limited nature of the user thereof by the local education authority; (iii.) the facilities given therein for special religious instruction and the performance of the original trusts; (iv.) the cost of maintenance and repair; and such other circumstances as may in their opinion properly be considered. He said that their Lordships on Thursday deleted from this clause subsection (a), which imposed upon voluntary schools a condition impossible of fulfilment. Sub-section (b) was, to his mind, a more serious one still. It practically enabled, and, indeed, invited, the Commission to turn a school which was under strictly denominational trusts into a Cowper-Temple school if the Commissioners thought that that method of dealing with the matter was the best in the public interest. That was completely ignoring the principle which had always been upheld by the Court of Chancery that if the strict interpretation of a trust was not possible the general intent at any rate of the trust should be followed; and certainly no view which the Court might take of the general interest of the public was allowed to interfere with the express trusts contained in the foundation deed. This, therefore, seemed to him to be a provision entirely in contradiction of the pledge contained in the earlier words of the clause, that— In making any such scheme, the Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court, and of the pledges given in the other House of Parliament by the Law Officers of the Crown and by the Minister for Education. As for the remainder of sub-section (b), the one sidedness and the unfairness of it were remarkable. All kinds of suggestions were made, but every one of them adverse to the interests of the owners of the schools. One condition was to him unintelligible—namely, that the facilities given for special religious instruction and the performance of the original trusts were to be taken into account when the Commission came to decide what payment they might think just.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)

May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? I think it was agreed that these Amendments should be taken more or less piecemeal, and that the noble Viscount's next Amendment should only be discussed down to the word "just." I notice that my noble friend opposite, Lord Camperdown, has an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the remainder of the clause, and it is quite possible that some noble Lords might desire to maintain the first paragraph of sub-section (b) but not the four provisoes. I think it would be more convenient if they were taken separately.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said he did not see how they could be taken separately as they were all qualifications of the terms that the Commission might make under the sub-section.

LORD ASHBOURNE

hoped that the noble and learned Viscount would adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl the Lord President. It was quite possible that some noble Lords would desire to allow the sub-section to stand down to the word "just."

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said he would consult the wishes of the Committee. He repeated, however, that sub-section (b) seemed to him to be an entire contradiction of the principles which had always guided the Court of Chancery in the formation of schemes for the administration of trusts. He begged to move the omission of the words down to the word "just."

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 10, to leave out from the word 'if' to the word 'just' in line 16."—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Viscount objects to the insertion of these words because, as he says, they invite the Commission to do something contrary to the practice of the Court of Chancery, and the effect is that denominational schools will be turned into Cowper-Temple schools if the Commission so decide. But the noble Viscount must remember the words at the top of the page, that the Commissioners have to act on the principles followed by the Court of Chancery. A clause of this kind is necessary because it is our intention to devise machinery for the taking over of these schools. As regards the words— They may by the scheme make provision for the purpose, subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters as the Commisssion think just, I am informed that it is very doubtful whether, on the breakdown of a trust, the Court, without some guidance of this kind, had to consider how the trust ought to be carried on, and whether it would be at any rate usual, or even competent, for them to make an order for the payment of any rent at all. Consequently, so far as those words are concerned, they really do act for the protection of the schools in which the noble Viscount is himself interested.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

failed to see how the noble Earl could reconcile the provision that the Commissioners were to act in accordance with the principles followed by the Court of Chancery if what they were to do was to be limited in the way proposed. It was understood that the Commissioners would have a perfectly free hand and not be tied in certain directions in the administration of the duties entrusted to them. The words proposed to be left out were to his mind a series of limiting restrictions, which were unnecessary if the Commissioners were to do their duty unfettered.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Is the noble Marquess alluding to the words down to "just," or to the later words?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I was taking the Amendments of Lord Camperdown and of Lord Llandaff together.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Marquess did not deal with my point as to the question of rent.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that, in his opinion, this clause was intended by the scheme of the Bill to be read in connection with Clause 2, and there the provision was laid down that the owners of a school-house held under a charitable trust might make an arrangement for the purposes there pointed out. Then came in this section to say that the Commission might deal with schoolhouses held under charitable trusts in respect of which no arrangement had been made. The portion of sub-section (b) under discussion did not propose to give any revolutionary powers to the Commission, but simply provided that if they were of opinion that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act was the best mode of giving effect to the trusts, they might, by the scheme, make provision for the purpose, subject to such conditions, if any, as to payment or other matters as the Commission thought fit. He was not prepared to say that there might not be substantial reasons for setting out the powers as they were set out, but it was possible that when they came to consider Lord Barnard's Amendment they would see that some of them were entitled to consideration.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said he was in very substantial agreement with the noble and learned Lord, but they were now dealing with the case where, the owners of the denominational school and the local education authority having failed to come to an agreement, the Commission were called in. The Committee would recollect that in Clause 2 they had made it compulsory on the local education authority, if the owners called upon them to do so, to take over the school, but they had made the preliminary negotiations optional. This clause was drawn up on the supposition that the preliminary negotiations or bargaining, if any, had failed. It would be absurd if, in the case where the owners of a denominational school had called upon the public authority to take over the school and had not come to an agreement as to terms, they were not then to provide that the Commission were to find that the proper way to give effect to the trust was to maintain it as a public elementary school subject to such conditions as they might think reasonable. Parliament never hesitated for one moment, when it dealt with the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the colleges therein, to give very extensive powers to the Commissioners. He held that some guide must be given to the Commission as to what was the will of Parliament, and he hoped the noble Viscount would, not press his Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELD

supported this appeal and; thought that with certain modifications, the sub-section might prove to be not only not prejudicial, but even a protection to many trusts. Under it the Commissioners would be able to deal with many of the trusts in a common-sense way and in a way perfectly consistent with the essential justice of the case.

LORD BARNARD

agreed with Viscount Llandaff that but for an exceptional state of affairs there would be-no necessity for any of the limitations set out in the sub-section. He doubted whether even the trainers of the Bill clearly saw what the result of the whole section would be. At first sight he thought the Commission, was to act as a special body to protect the main objects and interests of charities in the altered circumstances, but on further examination he was led to the conclusion that they were to favour the interests of the local authorities, which would very often be diametrically opposed to the charitable trusts. He was strengthened in that view by a remark of Lord Fitzmaurice, who had informed the Committee that the interests of the ratepayers and of the local education authorities were to be considered. He had, therefore, no great faith in the high-sounding direction to the Commission to act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court of Chancery in the matter of charities.

LORD COLCHESTER

pointed out that the Commission would have far larger powers than the Court of Chancery, or than those given by the Endowed Schemes Acts which might be restrained by either House of Parliament and asked how the restrictions proposed by these sub-sections to be placed on the powers of the Commissioners in framing schemes were to be enforced. There was not even an appeal from them provided.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said he had listened with some surprise to the Bishop of Wakefield approving the sub-section. In truth, its object was to compel trustees who refused to violate their trusts to part with their denominational schools j to the local authority to be turned into Cowper-Temple schools. He could not withdraw his Amendment.

THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)

said that in the case of many of these schools public equities had grown up on account of the enormous sums of money which in former years had been voted to them out of the rates and taxes, and therefore it was thought advisable to put in special words directing the attention of the Commission to these equities, so that the interests of the public might be adequately protected.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

held that sub-section (b) had a much wider and was likely to have a much larger operation than he thought the Committee were aware. Lord Stanley of Allerley had said that the clause simply provided a procedure which was to come into force in the event of an arrangement not being arrived at between the local education authority and the owners. He ventured to think that was a mistake, for if they looked at the opening of the clause they would see that the local education authority might, at any time after 1st January, 1907, apply to the Commission. Here they were in November, and on the first of next January the local education authority would be able to go to the Commission and request them to make a scheme and under sub-section (b) the Commission could virtually transfer nearly every denominational school to the local authority.

THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD

said that, as the clause was amended last week, sub-section (b) had become sub-section (a). The section therefore would now run— (2) In making any such scheme, the Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court; but (a) if they are of opinion that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school by the local education authority in accordance with this Act is the best mode of giving effect to the trusts, they may by the scheme make provision for the purpose, subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters as the Commission think just. He desired an explanation of the word "but" which immediately preceded the sub-section. The word must point to a contrast between Section 2 and what followed, and he was anxious to know what it was in the sub-section which was so placed in contrast with the principles followed by the Court of Chancery. Was it the opinion which the Commission might form, or the scheme they might make, or the payment they might offer? He would be glad if some light could be thrown on this point.

THE EARL OF CREWE

In reply to the right rev. Prelate, I have no doubt that the general principles on which the schemes are to be framed have to follow the practice of the High Court of Chan- cery; but, as I have already said, there is some doubt as to whether, under the practice of the Court of Chancery, it could be arranged that rent should be paid in the frequent circumstances contemplated. That alone, I think, makes the word "but" suitable.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that the remarks of the noble Earl had no reference to the operative part of the sub-section, but merely to the payment of rent. The sub-section provided that if the Commissioners were of opinion that the best way of giving effect to the trust was to transfer the school to the local education authority they could do so. That was the operative part of the sub-section; the rent was a very small matter.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think it will be more convenient if I put the Amendment down to the word "may." The Question, therefore, is, "That the words in line 10 to 'may' in line 13 stand part of the clause."

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said the Committee were in some difficulty in dealing with this matter. The noble and learned Viscount had not, he thought, sufficiently considered that if the words were left out there would be no power to arrange for the rent at all. Surely that was a very awkward situation in which to leave the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount was proposing to strike out words which prima facie were intended for the class of schools in which he was interested.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BARNARD moved as an Amendment that sub-section 2 (6) should be qualified by the insertion of the following words— Without prejudice to the exercise by the trustees of any discretion vested in them as to the application of the schoolhouse to some other charitable purpose, make provision by the scheme for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school. He referred to a Return which had been made to the House of Commons classifying trust schools, yet pointing out that in the bulk of the cases it was absolutely impossible to lay down hard and fast rules which should apply to any one class of schools. He considered that some such safeguard as he proposed was necessary.

Amendment moved:— In page 8, line 13, to leave out from 'may' to 'subject' in line 14 and to insert 'without prejudice to the exercise by the trustees of any discretion vested in them as to the application, of the schoolhouse to some other charitable purpose, make provision by the scheme for the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school.' "—(Lord Barnard.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am not disposed at once to accept the Amendment, because I do not see that it effects anything which is not already provided for in the Bill. The Commissioners are to act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court. It is obvious that a really alternative trust could not forcibly be handed over by the Commission if they followed that rule.

LORD ASHBOURNE

asked that the Return which had been made to the House of Commons and had been referred to by Lord Barnard should be communicated to their Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I will see that noble Lords who desire the Return shall have copies, but I think it is too bulky to be generally distributed.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

said that in the Return in question there-was a class of endowment which referred to what he might call mixed trusts as distinguished from alternative trusts; and he thought it was very possible that, unless some Amendment of the kind moved by Lord Barnard were inserted, these schools would be handed over to the local education authority without such restrictions as to user as would be necessary to enable the trustees to use the buildings for the purposes of the charity other than educational. If, for instance, the local education authority were to be allowed to put up fixed instead of movable partitions it might altogether hinder the use of the school for other purposes.. He hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would further consider this point.

LORD HENEAGE

said the Bill could not come into force until January next, whatever dispatch was used. The effect of the clause would therefore be that all trust schools would be altogether taken out of the purview of Clause 2, and would not obtain facilities under Clauses 3 and 4.

EARL CAWDOR

asked what was the meaning of the word "but." He understood that the Commission were to act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court. The subsection then ran— But if they are of opinion, and so on. Did not that seem to show-that there were to be some means by which the Commission could go away from the principles followed by the High Court and deal with these matters in a different manner?

THE EARL OF CREWE

I thought I had explained that in reply to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The word ''but" was put in to enable payment to be made which very likely might not be paid if the principles of the Court of Chancery were invariably followed. It is quite possible that a scheme providing for the payment of rent might be made entirely carrying out the principles of the Court of Chancery; whereas the Commissioners, if they followed strictly the principles on which the Court of Chancery acted, might not feel justified in making such a provision. As to the point raised by Lord Heneage, I think it is quite obvious that the question of the date will need reconsideration. I hope at the proper time to make a statement about the changes of date which are necessitated by the change of the date on which the Act is to come into operation.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said they must make a marked distinction between alternative and mixed trusts. In the case of alternative trusts, the existing owners of the school had, he thought a very clear right to demand that they should be allowed, if they abandoned the whole of the educational trust, to fall back on the alternative trust. He did not think this form of trust was at all common in Church of England schools, but it was, he thought, the dominant trust in Roman Catholic schools.

LORD BARNARD

said he was, of course, in the hands of the Committee. But as His Majesty's Government had seen fit after the word "but" to put in so many statements of the kind referred to, he thought a statement making it quite clear to the Commission what their duty was to the other party should be inserted.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I shall not raise any objection to the words, but I maintain my opinion that they are not necessary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

had Amendments on the Paper— In page 8, line 15, to leave out the words 'if any,' and in line 16, to leave out from 'just' to the end of sub-section (2), and to insert, 'provided that where the schoolhouse is subject to any charitable trusts which, either by means of special provisions with respect to any particular religious worship or observance, or instruction in religious subjects, or with respect to the control or management of the trust property, are intended to promote the interests of any particular church or denomination, the Commission in fixing the terms of payment shall have regard to the change effected in the nature and object of the school by reason of its conduct by the local education authority as a school provided by them.' The noble Viscount said his object had been to insert definite words that when a school was taken over for public purposes, regard should be had, in fixing the rent, to the loss in the character of the school; but Lord Barnard's Amendment met his object, and he therefore did not propose to move the Amendment standing in his name.

LORD BARNARD

then moved to insert after the words, "subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters," the words contained in his Amendment. He said that under ordinary circumstances it would be quite unnecessary to put in these words. But the Committee would remember that words to this effect were inserted in Clause 2, and he thought it was only right that a similar indication as to the line of their duty should be furnished to the Commissioners in this case.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 15, after the word 'matters' to insert 'including the preservation, as far as the altered circumstances will allow, of such trusts and the protection of the endowment subject thereto.' "—(Lord Barnard).

THE EARL OF CREWE

I should like to put it to the noble Lord whether he might not in some cases defeat his object by inserting these words. The words— As far as the altered circumstances will allow, of such trusts, might include cases where a considerable part of the trust is of a secular character, and that part is to be carried out in future entirely by the local education authority. Might this not rather be an inducement to the Commission to devote some of the endowment to the carrying oat of these secular purposes rather than to those of a religious character, in which, I take it, the noble Lord is most interested? By Section 13 of the Act of 1902 some very strange things were done in the case of these small endowments. They were handed over to the relief of the rates, not of the parish to which they belonged, but of the parishes from which it was thought children would come to the school. So far I am in agreement with the noble Lord's desire to protect endowments, but I think his Amendment would in some cases possibly have a hampering effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out the direction to the Commissioners contained in paragraphs (i.) to (iv.). The sub-section, he said, directed the Commission in certain minute details which seemed to him to be perfectly within the power of the Commission to consider for themselves. What were those details? The first was— The grants or assistance, if any, received from public funds towards the building, enargement, or improvement, Or fitting up of the schoolhouse. He thought the last of those building grants was in the years 1880 and 1881. They were given to the owners of the schools on certain conditions which had been fulfilled, and now twenty-five or twenty-six years afterwards Parliament proposed virtually to direct the Commission, in fixing the amount of the rent to be paid in future to the trustees, to deduct these building grants. He submitted that that was a very mean sort of proposal. The second detail was— The limited nature of the user thereof by the local education authority. The local education authority would have the chief user and the trustees only a certain limited user. The third detail was— The facilities given therein for special religious instruction and the performance of the original trusts. Therefore a deduction was to be made owing to the fact that religious instruction might be given hereafter in the school. He wondered whether that ought to be reckoned in pounds, shillings or pence; he would say the latter. And then came the fourth detail— The cost of maintenance and repair. Nothing, it would be observed, was said in favour of the trustees in the four conditions which the Commissioners were directed to have regard to, and if their Lordships decided to retain these words in the Bill he should certainly move a fifth condition which would form at least one item in favour of the owners. The noble Earl had assured them that the Bill was not actuated by any dislike of the Church of England or denominational schools. If that were so, then these words, at any rate, seemed to imply distrust of the Commissioners to which the Government were giving such ample powers.

Amendment moved:— In page 8, line 16, to leave out from the word 'just' to the end of sub-section (2). (The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, it is, of course, clear that these four paragraphs would represent one of the main pillars or buttresses of the Bill. They are more in the nature, no doubt, of a sort of annex,. I think the noble Earl is not quite fair in hinting that it was with any desire to press hardly on denominational schools that these words were inserted. The words must be read in connection with those preceding— Subject to such conditions (if any) as to payment or other matters as the Commission think just. "Think just" is a very vague term, and it is not the kind of line on which the Court of Chancery would act in preparing a scheme. The Court of Chancery would not consider all the circumstances of the case and fix a fair rent. All that they would do would be to see that the trust was carried out in the best way, and consequently these further powers must be read in connection with the word "just," extending to antecedent circumstances which must be borne in mind by the Commission in fixing the method of payment. As the procedure is a novel one we think that the words have a value as giving guidance to the Commissioners.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

asked whether the Commissioners themselves had been consulted on this question.

THE EARL OF CREWE

No.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

could not admit that the provisions were fair to both parties. He agreed with Lord Camperdown that they implied distrust of the Commissioners, and he thought that further reasons for their insertion ought to be given.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said that he was glad the question had been raised, but he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He was most anxious that throughout these discussions those who in a peculiar sense spoke on behalf of the Church should not seem in any kind of way to be specially pleading for indulgent treatment in regard to rent. The question of rent was not immaterial, but it was as nothing compared with the principles for which the spokesmen of the Church really cared. This one-sided direction to the Commissioners as to the things they were to be sure not to forget occupied a strange place in such a Bill as this. The Church would have to put up with a great deal that seemed strange in its one-sidedness. But he did net wish to vote against the words, lest it should be alleged that the objections of the Church to the Bill were based mainly on such considerations.

LORD BELPER

said that to direct the attention of the Commissioners to particular circumstances might be construed as an intention to exclude from consideration circumstances not specifically mentioned. Would it not be fairer to say that the Commissioners should have regard to all the circumstances of the case?

LORD BARNARD

said he held exactly the same opinion as the most rev. Primate and for the same reason. He hoped, therefore, that his noble friend Lord Camperdown would not press the Amendment to a division. He considered that the words were absolutely unnecessary, but if the advisers of His Majesty's Government thought that the attention of the Commission ought to be specially directed to these points, by all means let it be done. He wished to associate himself entirely with the most rev. Primate in deprecating any idea that those who were supporting the interests of the Church of England and other denominational schools desired to get any advantage out of the grants which had been received from public funds. Reference had been made to the sums of public money devoted to the building of voluntary schools, but no such grant had been made for nearly forty years; and the consequence was that if any sums of public money had in former days been expended on school buildings there had been forty years user of the schools.

LORD FITZMAURICE

I think grants continued to be paid down to 1880 or 1881.

LORD BARNARD

said that was twenty-six years ago, and was quite sufficient for his purpose. The noble Lord had not told the Committee what proportion this grant bore to the total amount spent on voluntary schools, which he thought ought to be taken into account.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said the appeal that had been made to him not to press his Amendment to a division had been based on the ground that the representatives of the Church of England did not wish it to be supposed that their objections were mainly applicable to the question of rent. That was not at all his reason for moving his Amendment. He was no very great supporter of denominational schools, and such denominational schools as he had he had handed over to the county. His reasons for moving the Amendment was to secure what he regarded as fairness and justice. Though the noble Earl had denied that this proposal was made in order to whittle down the sum payable to denominational schools, it seemed to him that, whatever the intention might be, that would be the effect. And, moreover, while they took away all they could from the owner,; of the schools they did not, on the other hand, give them credit for any of the sums they had expended. The proposal seemed to him to be entirely one-sided, and it was for that reason that he moved the Amendment. It might be, however, more expedient not to divide the Committee on his Amendment, but he would certainly move the insertion of a subsection later on in favour of the owners.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

said that though the intention of His Majesty's Government, as they had been given to understand, was to do justice, they had been singularly unfortunate in incorporating their good intentions in the Bill. Members of His Majesty's Government had gone about the country stating how generous they had been in the Bill to the Church, and that they were paying them rent and keeping their school buildings in repair. This was an instance of the kind of misrepresentation that had been indulged in in regard to this Bill. No mention was made in those speeches of the fact that by paragraph (iv) of this sub-section care was taken to stipulate that in fixing the rent the cost of maintenance and repairs should be taken into consideration. The denominations would have to pay for the teaching of religious instruction, and would have to pay further by receiving less rent.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

LORD BARNARD moved the insertion of a new sub-section, to provide that before such a scheme was finally estab- lished the Commission should give due notice thereof to the owners, and should also hear them if they desired to be heard. He explained that this Amendment was of the nature of those already discussed, and was an indication to the Commissioners as to their line of action.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 27, after the word 'considered' to insert the following new subsection: (3) Before suck a scheme is finally established the Commission shall give due notice-thereof to the owners, and shall also hear them if they desire to be heard."—(Lord Barnard.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

This Amendment is, as the noble Lord says, of the same character as those which he has moved before; but it appears to me, if I may say so, to be even less necessary than the last one he moved. I should conceive it to be impossible for the Commission to make a scheme without giving due notice to the owners. It seems to me to be almost a reflection on the Commissioners to suggest that they would do otherwise; but that is, perhaps, more a matter for the noble, Lord to consider than for us. I would, however, on that ground appeal to him not to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out sub-section (3). He explained that he did so in order to obtain some explanation as to what it meant. The sub section was inserted in the other House on Report and under the Closure, and therefore nothing was said with regard to it. The words were— (3) "A provision made by the Commission with respect to the use of a schoolhouse by a local education authority shall not have effect for more than five years unless the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse agree that the provison shall have effect for a longer time. He would have thought that when the Commission made a scheme it would be a good thing that it should be a lasting one, but that, of course, was a matter of opinion. The scheme was not to last for more than five years unless the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse agreed. In. a case in which they had not agreed that it should continue, the Commission would have ceased to exist long before the expiration of the five years. What would happen then to the scheme and to the school house?

Amendment moved— In page 8, lines 28 to 32, to leave out sub-section (3)."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Earl says he does not entirely follow the object or meaning of this sub-section. What would happen is this. It is quite possible, of course, that the local authority and the owners of the school might come to an agreement outside for the leasing or the hiring of the school for a greater number of years, or they might come before the Commission, and, having fought the matter out there, further agree that the lease should last for a longer time. But if they remained unagreed, and if the local authority were still hostile to the scheme, we do not think it right or wise to force upon a reluctant authority a scheme for more than five years. If the noble Earl will look at the next subsection he will see that at the end of the five years the scheme may proceed, but the powers of the Commission are transferred to the Board of Education for that purpose.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said the noble Earl's statement raised an important consideration. Was it intended that the Board of Education should have all the powers which had been confided to the Commission. It was a serious matter if that was so, because they would not only have the powers of the Court of Chancery but additional powers as well. The Board might even make a new scheme. The giving of this power to the Board of Education for all time was a totally different thing from giving it to a Commission which was named and appointed for a specified period.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It is provided in the Bill that the powers of the Commission shall be in force until 31st December, 1908, but His Majesty may by Order in Council continue their powers for such further period as His Majesty thinks fit; that is to say, if their original work is not done. But it is assumed that their work will all be completed and that the Commission will disappear before five years.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

That I quite understand.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Then what would happen is this, that these schemes, being educational charity schemes, would come before the Board of Education in their capacity as Charity Commissioners.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said he could not understand that. After the-Commission had expired the Board of Education were to be invested, not with the powers of Charity Commissioners but with the powers of this Commission, which were very different and subject to very different restrictions. Their Lordships had not understood until now that there was to be a continuance of these powers in the Board of Education indefinitely and relieved from the restrictions which at present applied to the Charity Commissioners.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

asked the Lord President to explain what security there was that the ordinary facilities would be permanent in their character and last beyond five years. It had been said repeatedly by the President of the Board of Education that the ordinary facilities were to be compulsory if asked for. That was not very clear in the Bill, and it was still less clear that they were to be permanent beyond the five years.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I hope the noble Earl will be able to give us some explanation on the point raised by my noble and learned friend beside me. It may be a new point to him and one of some difficulty, but we would like to know that the argument of my noble and learned friend will be taken into consideration.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am not quite certain what the powers are to be exercised by the Commission to the continuance of which by the Board of Education my noble and learned friend takes exception. If he will tell me I may perhaps be able to give him an answer.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said that for the future the Board of Education were to have power to make schemes and every scheme made by the Board was to be treated as if it had been made by the Commission under this Bill. That was one of the powers to which he look exception.

THE EARL OF CREWE

But the Board of Education has power to make schemes now.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that an important point to bear in mind in this connection was that by section 3 of Clause 9 no Court would have power to review or interfere in; any way with the schemes, decisions, or other proceedings of the Board of Education if they were given the full powers of the Commission under this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELD moved an Amendment to the effect that the provision made by the Commission in respect of the use of the schoolhouse by the local authority— Shall, if required by the owners, contain a condition, requiring the local education authority to afford facilities in accordance with this Act for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. He said his Amendment was by way of a direction to the Commission in order to secure what they had been told over and over again it was the intention of His Majesty's Government, that they should secure—namely, the ordinary facilities under Clause 3. There were thousands of schools in respect of which transfer to the local authority would be compulsory, and if a local authority declined to give any facilities whatever it would be entirely in the discretion of the Com mission, on being appealed to, not what facilities should be given, but whether any facilities should be given at all. Although any doubts they might have entertained on this matter had been largely removed since they had seen the names of the three gentlemen who were to constitute the Commission, he hoped the reasonableness of his Amendment would be recognised by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and that it would be accepted.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 32, after the word 'time' to insert the words 'and if required by the owners shall contain a condition requiring the local education authority to afford facilities in accordance with this Act for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

It certainly is the intention of His Majesty's Government that where people have a right to ask for facilities they should get them. That is made clear by our words in Clause 3— If the affording of facilities under this section for the giving of religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has been made a condition. Privately-owned schools will not come before the Commission at all, and therefore the question with regard to them docs not arise.

LORD BARNARD

Under the Amendment moved by Viscount St. Aldwyn to Clause 2 I think they will.

THE EARL OF CREWE

They may. I must say I have not followed the Amendment closely enough to dispute the accuracy of the noble Lord's statement. But there is, of course, a certain class of schools whose trusts do not, as a matter of fact, authorise them to ask for these facilities from the Commission. It is possible even that to grant these facilities for a certain class of schools, owing to the nature of their trusts—trusts, for instance, which do not say that the children are to be brought up in the principles of the Church of England—would be an actual departure from the practice of the Court of Chancery. On those grounds we are not able to accept the right rev. Prelate's Amendment to place this particular compulsion upon the Commissioners.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

hoped that some undertaking would be given that the gap to which he had called attention would be stopped up by His Majesty's Government. As the clause stood at present, there was clearly a possibility that in some cases facilities might be lost altogether.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I will consider the matter, but I cannot make any promise.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

asked whether the noble Earl meant that there were certain schools, in which special denominational teaching was now given, which would be transferred under this Act but in which the owners or representatives would have, no power to claim facilities, and, if they did claim them, would have no right necessarily to receive them.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I believe there are a certain number of such schools.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Of what kind?

THE EARL OF CREWE

There are a certain number of what are called parochial schools.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELD

said that in a very large number of instances, perhaps in an overwhelming number, denominational instruction had been given in these parochial schools for a great many years. Were they to understand that that custom was to be put an end to simply because there were no express terms in the trust deed with regard to such religious instruction?

[No Answer was returned].

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL CAWDOR

said the noble Earl (Lord Crewe) did not seem to appreciate the gravity of what might happen under this clause. At the termination of the scheme in five years the Board of Education would have the power to carry on the scheme. Why were such enormous powers to be given to the Board of Education? They had better leave the law as it stood. He moved to amend sub-section (4) of the clause by leaving out the words— And on the expiration of any such provision the Board of Education shall have the same powers for renewing the provision, or making a fresh provision for the like purpose, as the Commission have with respect to the provision originally made, and for the purposes of this Act any provision renewed or made by the Board of Education shall be treated as a provision made by a scheme of the Commission under this section. The section would then read— A scheme made by the Commission shall have effect as if enacted by this Act, but a provision made by the Commission with respect to the use of a schoolhouse by the local education authority may be altered by the Board of Education with the consent of the owners of the schoolhouse and the local education authority. That would leave the law at the termination of the five years exactly as it was, and would avoid what they regarded as so objectionable—namely, the transferring of the enormous powers of the Commission under this Bill to the Board of Education.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 38, to leave out all words-after "authority."—(Earl Cawdor.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Earl, as I understand, objects to what he calls the enormous powers of the Commission being transferred to the Board of Education, but I am almost tempted to ask if he knows what the present powers of the Board of Education are under such circumstances as these. What this clause says is that a provision may be altered or renewed by the Board of Education or a fresh provision made for a like purpose. The noble Earl, I suppose, has no objection to a provision's being altered by agreement and I imagine he would have no objection to its being renewed, but what he objects to is the power to make a fresh provision for a like purpose. What is it that the noble Earl is afraid of? What are the powers to the transference of which to the Board of Education he objects? The Board of Education now, acting as Charity Commissioners, have the powers of Charity Commissioners to make schemes in the event of a trust failing, as these trusts. are going to fail by our Bill, through an Act of Parliament, and I confess I do not understand what are the additional powers of great magnitude of which the noble Earl is afraid.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I s ill think there is something in the argument of my noble friend behind me. What I understand to be the case is that on the expiration of one of these provisions for the use of a school-house the Board of Education are given the same powers with regard to the question of renewal as the Commission are given with respect to the provision originally made—that is, they can issue a scheme which becomes virtually an Act of Parliament. In an earlier part of the section it is clearly stated that when one of these schemes has to be altered the consent cf the owners is invoked. But as I understand the wording of the clause, after the five years have passed the Board of Education, assuming the powers of the Commission, can deal with the question of renewal without any consultation whatever with the owners. That does seem to me to be conferring on them powers of a very excessive character.

EARL CAWDOR

asked if, under the existing law the Board of Education had sufficient powers as Charity Commissioners to deal with these schemes when they came to an end in five years time, why Parliament should give further powers? If the powers of the Commission were transferred to the Board of Education the schemes made by the Board would not be subject to Parliament, whereas all schemes under the Charity Commission had to be laid before and obtain the sanction of Parliament. He much preferred that the law should remain as it stood, and that these wider powers should not be handed over to the Board of Education.

THE EARL OF CREWE

On the other hand, the noble Earl is prepared to leave it to the goodwill and pleasure of the owners of the schoolhouse whether the Commissioners' scheme, however much the circumstances may change, should last for ever.

EARL CAWDOR

No, the Board of Education and the owners must concur.

THE EARL OF CREWE

If the owners do not concur nothing can be done.

EARL CAWDOR

Unless the owners and the Board of Education council in the continuance of the scheme the scheme comes to an end in five years.

THE EARL OF CREWE

If that is so, the whole of the rather tedious and elaborate procedure of making a fresh scheme by the Board of Education has to be gone through, and I cannot think that it would be for the benefit of these voluntary schools if in five years time fresh inquiries and procedure had to be gone through by the Board of Education before the scheme could be renewed. I should have thought that the owners and managers would have greatly preferred the more simple procedure which we desire.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I hope we may appeal to the noble Earl to consider what has been said, and to make sure there is no blot in the clause such as has been suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to amend sub-section (5) by providing that a scheme made under the clause might be set aside or varied by the Court of Chancery on a petition presented for that purpose. He thought nobody could doubt that the work of the Commission would be very difficult and arduous. The Commissioners would have to consider very complicated trusts, and they would have a vast number of extremely intricate questions to decide. It seemed to him, therefore, only reasonable to suppose that they might sometimes give a wrong decision. Why was there to be no appeal from their decision if it was an erroneous one? He would be told that the Commissioners were very eminent men. He admitted that they were, but they were not more eminent than His Majesty's Judges and the Court of Chancery whose powers the Commission would exercise, and whose judgments were subject to appeal. He could understand that it might be said that to allow an appeal was to encourage excessive litigation, but he thought that the fact that an appeal did involve delay and expense was sufficient to prevent appeals being unnecessarily made. They would only be made in exceptional cases.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 5, at the beginning of subsection (5) to insert the words 'A scheme made under this section may be set aside or varied by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice on a petition presented for that purpose but save as aforesaid.' "—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope the Committee will not agree to this Amendment. The object, of course, in making this Commission such a strong body as it is was to enable it to take the place of the Court of Chancery in these matters. I do not know whether the noble Lord contemplates an appeal to a single Judge, or to a Divisional Court, but if to a single Judge, I doubt whether it would carry so much weight as the decision of the three Commissioners; and if there had been any question of leaving this matter of appeal open, we should have attempted to send the question straight to the Court, rather than interpose the Commission at all. We should run a considerable risk of a very serious waste of time. Of course it is very important indeed that the decisions should be legal and just, and I think the composition of the Commission ensures that. It is also important that they should be as speedy as possible, and I cannot help thinking that the objection which the noble and learned Viscount anticipated—namely, that litigation in some cases might cause serious delay is a very formidable objection. I hope, therefore, the Committee will not support the noble Viscount's Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

pointed out that the revision of schemes at the end of five years would come before the Board of Education. There was a great distinction between powers given to a special Commission, and similar powers given to a Government Department. It was possible for the Board to be subjected in certain circumstances to a considerable amount of political pressure; and he asked the President of the Council to consider whether it would not be right to give some sort of appeal from the Board, at, least to the extent of laving the renewed schemes before Parliament for approval.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said he had no distrust of the Board of Education. He was sure that no President of the Board would abandon his judicial function under political pressure. At the same time, the Board was not so strong judicially as the proposed Commission; and therefore, there was point in the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate, that some sort of review of its decision should be provided.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I thank the noble Marquess for the good charact3r he has given us when we act as Charity Commissioners. When the Board of Education acts in its judicial capacity it entirely forgets matters of a more polemical kind. I will consider the point, but the noble Marquess must remember that when these things come before the Board of Education they will have had the advantage of watching the proceedings of the Commission during the whole time it will have been sitting, and I hope that in the vast majority of cases they will have very little to do but to carry on the scheme on practically the lines of the Commission.

LORD ASHBOURNE

hoped the noble Earl would look more closely into this matter before Report. The Commission was, undoubtedly, a very high body, but it would not be quite the same thing when their jurisdiction devolved upon the Board of Education. He thought it was well worth considering before the next stage of the Bill whether it would not be wiser to say that schemes relating to charitable endowments should be laid before Parliament by the Board of Education. This, of course, would enable them to be reviewed in either House.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I can promise the noble and learned Lord that the matter will be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

then moved to omit the concluding words of subsection (5), which empowered the Commission to decide whether a schoolhouse was held under charitable trusts or not. This was, he said, the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission had jurisdiction only over schoolhouses held under charitable trusts. It was, he thought, unprecedented that an inferior Court should be allowed to decide finally and without appeal whether it had jurisdiction or not. In moving this Amendment, however, he was not reflecting in any way on the capacity of the Commission. The Supreme Court had at all times asserted its right by prohibition if an inferior Court exceeded its jurisdiction.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 7, to leave out from the first 'Commission' to the end of the subsection."—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

There is no doubt that this is a somewhat novel proposition, but when the noble Viscount speaks of an inferior Court I would remind him that this is not an inferior Court, because there is explicitly to be no appeal from it. Therefore when he speaks of it as an inferior Court the noble Viscount only means that it ought to be an inferior Court, and that there ought to be an appeal from it. There is no doubt that in deciding whether a school-house is held under charitable trusts or not very different questions of title and such like may arise, and if the noble Viscount will be content that the Commissioners shall have power to give leave to appeal where they think it necessary we shall be prepared to agree to a proviso of that kind.

LORD BARNARD

hoped the noble and learned Viscount would adhere to his Amendment. When the powers of the Charity Commission over educational endowments were transferred to the Board of Education the question whether or not an endowment was or was not subject to charitable trusts was specially reserved to the Charity Commission.

THE EARL OF CREWE

That is quite right.

LORD BARNARD

thought that the power to decide whether a schoolhouse was held under charitable trusts or not would be better left to an independent body with expert evidence at their command. As the noble and learned Earl the late Lord Chancellor had pointed out, under the clause as it stood all the powers of the Commission would be transferred to the Board of Education, and they would be thereby undoing another Act which provided that the Charity Commission and not the Board of Education should determine whether or not a trust was a charitable trust.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I hope the Committee will see that this is not a very reasonable Amendment. The noble Lord who spoke last objects to this particular power or privilege being removed from the Charity Commission, but one of the excellent reasons for appointing our Commission of three was that whereas a purely educational trust would have had to be decided by the Board of Education as Charity Commissioners, other points would have had to be decided by the Charity Commissioners themselves. That was one reason why we thought it better to appoint a Commission of three. All these questions will have been settled long before the Board of Education takes over any of the powers of the Commission. I renew my offer to the noble Viscount. I shall be prepared to agree to a proviso, to be moved later, that the Commission shall have power to give leave of appeal in cases where they think it necessary.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

was proceeding to ask a question with regard to the powers of the Council for Wales, when—

THE EARL OF CREWE

said: I cannot answer any question relating to the Council for Wales until we reach that clause.

LORD HENEAGE

thought the compromise offered by the noble Earl was perfectly fair and would work well. He hoped the noble Viscount would accept it, and not press his Amendment to a division.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

said he would take what he could get. He accepted the noble Earl's promise to introduce the proviso in question at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Moved, "That Clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

asked permission to revert, before the clause was passed, to the Amendment moved by the Bishop of Wakefield providing that, if required by the owners, the provision made by the Commission should contain a condition requiring the local education authority to afford facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. He understood the noble. Earl the Lord President to declare, in speaking on the Amendment, that there were some schools which ought not to have these facilities. He asked the noble Earl how he could reconcile that statement with the declaration of the President of the Board of Education in explaining Clause 3 in the House of Commons, that facilities would be given in all schools when demanded and where required.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I did not say that these schools would not get facilities. What I said was that they would not be entitled to ask for them under the doctrine of the practice of the Court of Chancery, owing to the terms of their trusts.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

You mean that they could be asked for and could be granted? The point is a little obscure.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I should not like to commit myself on that point at the moment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

hoped the Committee would have a clear statement on the point. He had not yet had time to refer to Hansard, but he thought the noble Earl would find that this very Amendment, when moved in the House of Commons almost in the same words, was declared to be unnecessary because this had been already done.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I think that is practically the case, but I should not like to state it as an invariable proposition.

On Question, Clause 9, as amended agreed to.

Clause 10:—

LORD STANMORE

did not think their Lordships were likely to object to this clause, which provided for the appointment of the Commissioners, and still less to the gentlemen who were to be appointed. But he hoped that, in passing the clause, they would take to heart the fact, which he believed to have been very imperfectly appreciated in the House, and he was sure not at all appreciated in the country, that these eminent men were to be appointed, not to prepare permanent and lasting schemes such as those of the Charity Commission, but simply to effect temporary arrangements having force for five years and no longer.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said the Commissioners could not be expected to do all the work themselves, and they ought to have power to appoint surveyors, inspectors, and so forth. The Government could not have thought out the details of this scheme.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble and learned Lord is right in believing that the Government have not thought out the complete details. Of course a great deal will depend on the progress that is made with the arrangements that the Commissioners will have before them. The Government are fully alive to the importance of speed and efficiency in this matter, and I can promise that any assistance the Commissioners require in the way of staff to enable them to carry out their duties in the best way we shall cheerfully provide.

LORD BARNARD

asked whether there was any particular reason for not having inserted a clause similar to that inserted in the case of the Endowed Schools Commission, empowering the Commissioners to appoint assistant Commissioners, a secretary, and such other officers as were necessary.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I cannot answer that question absolutely; but I imagine that it was due to the fact that they do not get to work at once when the Bill passes, and there is time enough to arrange these matters afterwards.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought their Lordships should be very unwilling to entrust these powers to sub-Commissioners.

On Question, Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend sub-section 1, which ran— Where the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school is held under charitable trusts, the local education authority if they require the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of avoiding for the time being any deficiency of public school accommodation in their area and have not obtained, that use under this Act, shall be entitled to have, without payment, such use of the schoolhouse as is needed for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school from the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and eight until the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and tea, by leaving out the words "without payment." He did not, see any particular reason why the local education authority should not pay for the use of the schoolhouse during this period.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 37, to leave out the words without payment.'"—(The Earl of Camper down.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

Clause 11 deals with the temporary use of schools before arrangements have been made or before the Commission may have heard the particular case. If the noble Earl looks at the clause he will see that the object is that, as far as possible, the school, though under the management of the local authority, should be carried on in practically the identical manner in which it is carried on at present. The teacher gives religious instruction and has to be appointed with reference to his willingness to give the instruction, and, in addition to that, the local authority undertakes the liability for repairs. Therefore it does seem reasonable that during that period no rent should be payable. What was agreed upon in the case of schools under Clause 4 ought a fortiori to be agreed to here.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to insert words providing that "such use shall be had in such manner and on such terms as to payment and otherwise as shall be agreed between the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse, or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by the Board of Education." The position of the temporarily occupied schools was, he said, a very curious one, and he did not think His Majesty's Government had quite realised all the difficulties that would arise. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill let drop a phrase that the local education authority would manage the school, but he submitted that that was not so. He thought the schools would be without any managers at all. The temporarily occupied school was not a provided school, and consequently the local education authority would have no power under the law as it stood, or as it was proposed to be altered by this Bill, to appoint managers. The foundation managers who existed at the present time under the Act of 1902 would disappear, and it seemed to him that there would be no managers at all of these temporarily occupied schools unless an alteration was made in the Bill. The Bill provided that the religious instruction was to go on as before in the temporarily occupied schools, but it did not say by whom it was to be paid for. Under Clauses 3 and 4 it was expressly stated that the local education authorities were not to pay for the religious instruction. Under this clause, by which a denominational school might be occupied for two complete years, nothing was said as to who was to pay for the religious instruction. His noble friend Lord Camperdown had just withdrawn an Amendment which attempted to strike out the words "without payment," and for that action he could see no obvious reason. If the owners or managers of the school were to pay for the religious instruction, he would have thought it was only fair that they should receive a rent for the use that the local education authority would make of their school. He thought this Would be a clause of very wide application, and it was extremely probable that the great mass of the voluntary schools would be occupied temporarily under it. They would have the advantage of getting the school without any payment at all in the way of rent, and the other payments they would have to make would be the same as under Clauses 3 and 4. The clause assumed that the local education authority would appoint the teachers.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, that is so.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

quoted the provision in the clause that if a vacancy arose in the office of teacher while the schoolhouse was used under this section the local education authority should, in choosing a teacher, appoint one who was willing to give the religious instruction required under the section. Under what authority, he asked, could the local education authority appoint a teacher for a school which was not a provided school and which was not transferred to them? The managers alone had the right by law to appoint the teachers, and the provision was deficient in that respect.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 2, after the word 'ten' to insert the words 'and such use-shall be had in such manner and on such terms as to payment and otherwise as shall be agreed between the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse, or in default of agreement as shall be determined by the Board of Education.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I would point out that the Committee have agreed to the words "without payment." The Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount when it says "on such terms as to payment" is therefore inconsistent with the words "without payment" which are in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the observation which has just been made by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman is conclusive. So far as the question of payment is concerned the Committee have decided that the words "without payment" are not to be struck out Therefore it is not competent to insert this provision in the noble Viscount's Amendment.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

There is still the question of the appointment of teachers.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, but that, I think, is raised on a later Amendment by the Earl of Camperdown. As a matter of fact these schools will be managed by the local education authority because under the Act the same conditions and provisions are to apply to them as to the schools in respect of which arrangements are made for the use of the school house. They will actually be managed by the local authorities, and the teacher will be appointed by the local authorities, but the whole character of the teaching is allowed, during the period of suspense, to remain the same, owing to the fact that it is possible that the schools may not be taken over at all, and the owners may wish to continue them as private schools.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

then formally moved to leave out the words:— And if a vacancy arise in the office of teacher while the schoolhouse is used under this section, the local education authority shall, in choosing the teacher, appoint a teacher who is willing to give the religious instruction required under this section.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 12, to leave out all the words after the word 'duties' to the end of the subsection."—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

I do not see the noble Viscount's object in desiring to leave out these words. It seems to me that they are all in favour of those who wish to carry on the schools as before.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Surely this Amendment is consequential on the earlier one which the noble Viscount has already withdrawn. Therefore might I suggest that he should withdraw this Amendment and insist on the other one to insert "and competent?"

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF

then moved the insertion, after the word "willing," of the words "and competent."

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 15, after the word 'willing' to insert the words 'and competent.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

It is obvious that we cannot accept this Amendment, because it opens up again the question of tests.

* LORD HARRIS

foresaw considerable difficulties if these words were inserted. He did not know whether noble Lords appreciated what was going on in the country in consequence of the Act of 1902. The object of that Act was to introduce a system of co-ordination. The result of that had been that they were educating children at the pupil teacher age and encouraging them to compete for exhibitions at schools of secondary education. From there they were encouraged to enter into competition for entrance to training colleges, and the consequence was that by degrees the schoolmasters of a county would have arrived at that stage of trained school-mastership by competition, and at no stage that he knew of would the local authority have been justified in examining them as to their competency for religious teaching. There would have been established in the course of time a county service of teachers, and he would not be at all surprised if it because a graded service, for obviously the larger schools would carry a higher rate of pay, and it would not be always easy to take from one school simply at the request of a denomination a teacher at a higher salary, because that denomination wanted him, and send him to a school at a smaller rate of pay. He would have thought the denomination ought to be able to decide who among the staff of teachers was competent.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to provide that while a school was temporarily taken over under the clause, the local education authority should pay the teachers' salaries during the whole time the school was open, including the time set apart for religious instruction. He said that in the other House of Parliament, the same words were moved, but the President of the Board of Education then said that the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary as the salaries of the teachers Would be paid by the local education authority as heretofore, and the Amendment was withdrawn on the assurance that the whole of the salary would be paid by the local authority. It had since transpired, under the West Riding judgment, that Mr. Birrell was wrong. They were now told that the salary was to be divided in future. As the noble Earl had stated that it was the intention of the Government that the schools temporarily taken over should be managed exactly in the same way as hitherto, it seemed to him that, so far from being unnecessary, the words in his Amendment were absolutely essential.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 16, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'While the school-house is so used., the local education authority shall pay the salaries of the teachers during the whole time the school is open, including the time set apart for religious instruction."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

This is the first time that we have run against the West Riding judgment in our discussions. Since Mr. Birrell spoke on a similar Amendment, the position has changed owing to the reversal of the judgment of the High Court by the Court of Appeal. The Government are prepared to adhere to the principle that the salaries of the teachers shall or shall not be paid by the local authorities, according to the state of the law up to the time that this Bill comes into operation. If the judgment of the Court of Appeal is sustained, it would be unreasonable that these schools should have an advantage over others. If the judgment is reversed, it is reasonable that these schools should have the same advantages as others.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that the noble Earl had used an argument which was the exact opposite to that which he used when he (Lord Camper-down) moved to omit the words "without payment." The noble Earl should remember that they were taking over schools which belonged to private owners, and that they were taking them over for their own purpose and only for a limited time. Nothing was to be paid for the use of the school, and therefore he could not see any justice in saying that the teachers who gave the religious instruction were not to be paid by the local education authority.

On Question, a division was challenged, when

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the teachers were to be paid up to the date that the law was declared.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am afraid it is not competent for me to discuss the terms of an Amendment at this stage. We can only discuss points of order.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:—

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved the insertion of a new sub-section to Clause 12, which, he reminded the Committee, was the clause under which it was provided that an existing voluntary school should not be closed at any time between the passing of this Act and the first day of January, 1908, except with the sanction of the Board of Education, and that if the managers of any such school in cases where no such sanction was given were unwilling or failed to carry on the school during that period, the local education authority might carry on the school as a school provided by them, until the first day of January, 1910. He thought that if the local authority were carrying on a school in this way they ought to carry it on on the same terms and in the same manner as had obtained hitherto. Therefore sub-section (2) of Clause 11 ought to apply to Clause 12.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 33, after the word 'school' to insert the following new sub-section—(2) 'While a schoolhouse is used under the powers given by this section, th.3 same conditions and provisions shall apply under this Act as when an arrangement is made for the use of a school house, except that the local education authority shall not make any alteration which is of a permanent character or will interfere with the use of the schoolhouse for any purpose for Which it has been previously used, and shall permit the religious instruction given in the school to be of the same character as previously given, and shall also permit the teachers in the school to give that instruction as part of their duties, and, if a vacancy arise in the office of teacher while the schoolhouse is used under this section, the local education authority shall, in choosing the teacher, appoint a teacher who is willing to give the religious instruction required under this section—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

The point raised on this clause is entirely different from the one raised on the previous clause. The last clause was to enable a friendly arrangement to be carried on in a way which would cause the least friction to the school. But this is rather a different matter. The Board of Education would always sanction the closing of a school where it was done in a reasonable manner, but this is to meet the case of a private owner who, simply in order to give annoyance, determines to dislocate the whole of the education in the district. Consequently the clause is made distinctly penal. If the owner can show sound reasons for wanting to devote his school to some other object, say a village club or a tennis court or anything he pleases, he can do so; but, in consideration of the fact that he has made himself responsible for the education of the children in the district, it is not too much to ask him to leave his school open until some other provision has been made. The clause would only affect owners who, from mulishness, endeavoured to prevent the working of this provision.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

did not believe that any owner would be desirous of creating annoyance. The great object of these gentlemen had been to carry on the education in the district in a manner likely to be suitable to the parents. But, if a school was taken compulsorily from what the noble Earl had described as a mulish owner, what was the education to be given in that school in the future? That had not been explained. He had no doubt that the so-called mulish owner would not be mulish if he knew that the denominational education which he had fostered was to be continued; but if, on the other hand, he was told that the denominational education of which he approved was to be abolished and be replaced by Cowper-Temple teaching, it was quite possible that he would rather turn the school, which was his own private property, into a village club or use it for some other purpose. The noble Earl's proposal was to confiscate the school and not allow this to be done. He would like some explanation as to the religious teaching to be given in the school after it had been conficsated.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Marquess talks as though the school would be taken away without the possibility of an arrangement being arrived at. There is nothing whatever to prevent a private owner making an arrangement under Clause 3, by which he would have his share of facilities and Cowper-Temple teaching. If he were to leave the school open until another school could be built, it would be carried on for a year; whereas if he insisted on closing it directly, he might, as I say, dislocate the whole of the education of the district. The school is his private property, and he may shut the door. But he is doing an unwarrantable thing if he turns it into anything else until other provision can be made; and this clause is intended to penalise him. During the period that it is conducted it will be conducted as a council school under ordinary arrangements made by the council.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

What is to be the religious instruction given in that school if it is taken in the way described?

THE EARL OF CREWE

The owner can either make an arrangement or go before the Commission. This is only in case he shuts the doors of his schools without a word to anybody.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause13:—

LORD BELPER moved to leave out "any other Parliamentary grant" and to insert "the amount now paid under Parliamentary grants to each local education authority." He was quite aware that any substantial Amendment to this clause was not competent to be moved in their Lordships' House, but there were a great many noble Lords, who, like himself, had paid considerable attention for many years to county finance, and he thought it was not only their right, but their positive duty to ask for some assurance from the Government, in order to dispel the great anxiety and apprehension felt by members of county councils and those who had the administration of education, with regard not only to the operation of this clause, but as to what would happen with regard to the further grant to be distributed. He thought that in making a reference to what the Government's intentions were it would be more convenient if he referred to the Answer given by the President of the Board of Education to a Question in the other House. It was the most authoritative statement made by any member of the Government on the matter. In that statement Mr. Birrell said that the distribution of the new grant—the £1,000,000—would have regard both to the actual increase of local burden consequent upon the Bill and to the amount of the education burden in an area. He (Mr. Birrell) believed there could be no doubt that taking the country as a whole the sum named in the Bill would considerably more than cover the total liabilities that could be reasonably expected to accrue to the local authorities in respect of the new burden and the structural repairs of the voluntary schools taken over, also in respect of sums paid by way of rent and otherwise, or in the shape of new annual charges for sinking fund and interest in respect of new council schools. While the statement of the Minister for Education was so far satisfactory that this grant was to have regard to the actual increase of local burdens, and while he stated that there was no doubt that it would be sufficient for the purpose with regard to the taking over of voluntary schools, he, had to notice that in dealing with this sum of money which Mr. Birrell said was to meet the burden of education caused by the Bill he did not mention a number of clauses which would cause considerable expense to county councils if the Bill passed into law in its present form. He was alluding only to provisions which were either in the Bill when it was introduced in the other House or which were put in by Amendments which the Government themselves approved.

He would like to point out some of the principal clauses which would have an effect on the financial burden on the counties. In the first place the voluntary schools for the time being would be liable to be rated. The county authority would have to pay the rate on all the voluntary schools they took over. There would also be an indirect effect with regard to that matter, because whereas many council schools had not at present been rated it was quite certain they would be when all the voluntary schools fell in. By the same clause the correspondence from all the voluntary schools, which had been hitherto done voluntarily, would have to be paid for, and that would require a substantial sum. Then they came to Clause 8. He did not wish to fight over again the difference of opinion they had the other night with regard to what he considered was certain to be some increase on the teachers' salaries in consequence of the provision that they should not be liable to perform the duty of giving religious instruction. He was bound to say he could not see how they could avoid some extra expense on that head. If the Government could give some assurance that no teacher should get for giving secular instruction as much as he had been getting before for giving religious instruction as well, and that religious instruction, therefore, would, if it was an extra, not make his salary up to more than it was now, he would be happy to receive it; but, as things were, he thought this would necessitate a charge on the county.

He now came to the delegation clause. There could not be any doubt that that clause would make a very substantial extra charge on the county, because the county would have to pay the staff of the delegated bodies as well as their correspondents, and there would certainly be no proportionate decrease in the charges for the clerical staff of the local authorities. In fact it was very doubtful whether the central authority would not have to pay quite as many clerks in order to conduct the correspondence with the delegated bodies. Then they came to another clause which had not been discussed yet in their Lordships' House—a clause which imposed an absolute obligation on the authority to have a medical inspection of all the children in the school when they entered the school and at other times. He did not wish to dwell upon this point now, because he had an Amendment down with regard to it. But, as a matter of fact, when the Bill was introduced it gave power to the local education authority to deal with this matter, whereas it had since been changed to a duty, and, therefore, as it stood now, it was an absolute obligation. He thought he would be able to show, when they came to the clause, that in country districts with scattered schools the provision would not only be most difficult to carry out, but that a considerable amount of extra charge would be imposed on the local authorities if they Were to administer that part of the Bill in a satisfactory manner.

He had had estimates made in his own county and had seen estimates prepared in other counties with regard to these charges. He would not quote them for the reason that there was no doubt the figures must vary according to the exact form which the Bill eventually took. Figures at this stage, therefore, must be to a large extent guesswork. But the figures he had obtained had been very carefully checked and the charges mentioned came to a larger sum than the amount which would be applied under those heads and which Mr. Birrell said would be amply sufficient for the purpose. Even supposing they accepted the statement that £1,000,000 was amply sufficient for the purposes mentioned by Mr. Birrell there would still be a further considerable charge for which no provision had been made or considered. That was a point of importance, and he mentioned it because he hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be able to tell them that the Government would be willing to set aside a grant to cover those matters as well as the matters mentioned in Mr. Birrel's statement. That was only one point of the case to which he wished to allude.

The other point was one of equal importance and on which the country at large felt very great apprehension. He might say with regard to those points that the Education Committee of the County Councils Association only a few days ago passed a resolution supporting the contention which he was laying before the House. In that resolution they stated that it was clear that any scheme for the distribution of the Exchequer grant which was to have regard in some equitable manner to the total burden borne by the local authorities must involve a readjustment of the Exchequer grants in aid of elementary education. It was proposed to pay these different grants at convenient intervals, which would be a very great convenience to county councils. The point on which they were alarmed was this fact, that when these grants were to be paid it did not follow that the county councils would receive the same sums as they were receiving now. Mr. Birrell's statement made it perfectly clear that the distribution of the grants, including the £1,000,000, was to depend to a certain extent on the total burden borne by the locality in respect of elementary education. There had been revelations with regard to some localities in populous districts of late, and they knew that in some cases the rate might be very much increased owing to gross mismanagement and extravagance, to use no stronger term. He would like from the noble Earl some assurance of the test they were going to apply to the local authorities, and that the money would not be paid to a local authority according to its extravagance.

This became a very serious matter to county councils who had endeavoured to keep their rates down, and to manage matters in an economical manner. He could conceive no more dangerous principle to be applied to local government than that encouragement should be given to the idea that those who were ex- travagant and had in consequence raised their rates to a high point would get a larger share of the grants than those who were economical. Local education authorities should have at least the same share of the Government grant that they had before, and the Bill should not involve an extra charge on the administration of education.

Amendment moved— In page 11, line 1, to leave out the words 'any other Parliamentary grant,' and insert the words 'the amount now paid under Parliamentary grants to each local education authority.'"—(Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF CREWE

We have had one or two brief discussions on this subject already in this House, and, as my noble friend said, the matter has been dealt with to some extent in another place by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education. I have very little to add to what I have said before.

The round figure of £1,000,000 named in the clause does not purport to represent a definite calculation, because such a calculation is impossible. If we had cared to pretend that we were able to put down so much a place as the cost of taking over the school we could, of course, have done so, but we should not have been able to bring forward any really rational basis for such a calculation. This sum, therefore, is in the nature of an estimate, and we can only say of it that we believe it to be a tolerably liberal estimate, having regard to all the facts of the case.

A noble Lord opposite has compared our proceeding disadvantageously with the provision made in the Act of 1902. Now the Act of 1902, Clause 10, always seemed to me to be like a bad dream, and I should be rather surprised if any noble Lord could tell me what it means. It is obvious that the terms under which schools are likely to be taken over will vary greatly. Any attempt to calculate, first the number of schools that will probably be taken over, and, secondly, what is likely to be paid, is hopeless; and therefore, it is necessary to make a broad estimate of the amount in a round sum. The new grant is to be applied in two different ways—partly to the increased burden consequent on the operation of the Bill, and partly to the total amount of the education rate of the year. At the same time local authorities must not suppose that whatever expense they choose to incur under the Bill the State will see them through. Such an understanding would put a premium on extravagance. We desire to encourage the local authorities to be as economical as possible consistently with the interests of education.

The noble Lord desired to know whether we could promise that in no case would rates be higher under the Bill than before. We certainly do not desire to level all giants in such a manner as would penalise those authorities that were economical. But there are cases of poor districts, where the education rate produces so small an amount and the total burden of the cost is so great, in which some special kind of State assistance will have to be given. Whether the sum proposed to be allocated for the grant will have to be increased I am not in a position to say. A careful Minister is not likely to put a larger burden on the rates than he can possibly help, for he realises the curious fact that while people accept without a murmur heavy Imperial taxation, they go into convulsions at the prospect of an extra twopence on the rates. I think the noble Lord must rely on that fact to ensure that a Chancellor of the Exchequer, careful of the popularity of his Government, would not allow the rates to rise any higher than he could help. The discussion of the Amendment is really academic or of the debating society sort, for, of course, it is not in order, and I have no doubt the noble Lord has no desire to press it.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

said that although he was sufficiently alarmed before hearing the speech of the Lord President of the Council as to the effect of this Bill in the counties and the local authorities' areas, since that speech his alarm had become intensified, and he considered that the situation, from the explanations the noble Earl had given as to the distribution of this grant, had become much more serious. He understood the noble Earl to say that this grant of a million was a round sum estimated upon no fixed basis, and that it was hopeless to calculate the amount which would be required to meet the demands under the Bill. He hoped before he sat down to show their Lordships that these calculations might have been made very much more nearly than they had been, and that the amount which had been calculated by the Government was very considerably less than would be required. After telling them that he could not calculate the exact amount to be required, the noble Earl had said that the distribution of the grant would depend on the actual increase on account of the Bill and on the total amount of the rate in the area. That raised a large and serious question. If they had to deal with the grant for other subjects beyond what were required by the Bill the country ought to understand distinctly that this was the object with which it was brought forward. No one had any objection to the relief of what were called necessitous areas, and he hoard with great sympathy what the noble Earl said as to those areas which had not had the advantage of voluntary schools, which, having poor rateable values, were, therefore, in an impecunious position through high rates. If they were to be relieved out of this grant there should be a clause in the Bill distinctly stating that. He did not believe there was a person in the realm, and certainly there was no one of their Lordships who would object or could raise any objection, whether legally by the forms of the House or on the platform outside, to a grant being given towards the relief of those areas, but when he heard that conditions for the relief of those areas were to be incorporated in a Bill brought in for the purpose of satisfying a few who wished to see the Act of 1902 amended, he did not see why the two subjects should be mixed up together. He understood the Lord President of the Council to say he was quite certain that each authority would get some share of the grant. That was a way of dealing with this question which, speaking for his own local authority and for the County Councils' Association, who had unanimously passed a resolution to which Lord Belper had alluded, had alarmed every local authority in the country. If they were only to be told that they were to get some share they were in this position, that they knew not how to approach any consideration or administration of the Act. It was not fair to tell them that they were only to get a share. They wanted to be assured that the total expenses of the Bill, which had been forced upon them, would be met out of the Exchequer grant, and if the Exchequer grant was insufficient that there would be further grants. It was this that they were anxious about. Those who looked upon the Bill as a great measure of educational reform must be very sanguine people. As far as it had gone he looked upon it as the most extravagant measure ever produced in Parliament. The Government had distinctly come forward to take over buildings which had been voluntarily given for educational purposes. They offered to pay for them. If they did not wish to take them over they would have to build others. They would not go to the country and say what the cost of providing those buildings would be. It would be a great more than the £l,000,000 grant, and it was, therefore, he maintained, an extravagant Bill. But they recognised that it was a Bill which was required. There was a certain section of the public who demanded that the 1902 Act should be amended in this direction, and the Bill was brought in. He was one of those who only hoped there might be some compromise arrived at which would allow the Bill to pass, and that they would be spared further agitation upon the matter, But what he maintained on behalf of the ratepayer was that whatever Bill they passed, they should see that he was not more mulcted in his pocket, that there was no increase in the rates because they had chosen to pass the measure. What alarmed them was the Answer given by the Lord President of the Council to the Question put by his noble friend, Lord Camper down, when he confessed in his most charming manner that he always had the rates to fall back upon. That was a most dangerous state of matters. The Bill dealt, as he would show directly, with subjects of far-reaching extent and importance, but they had no estimate of what it was going to cost. The Government rushed into the matter with a million that they could not apportion, the basis of which they did not know, and they did it because they had the rates to fall back upon. The noble Earl had said that these statistics as to the cost of the Bill were impossible to arrive at. His noble friend, Lord Belper, when he alluded to the extra cost that would be entailed upon local authorities, alluded to the rates which would be put upon the schools, to the extra pay which would probably have to be given to the teachers, to the extra cost of delegation, and to the cost of medical inspection under Clause 24. But he left out what in his (Lord Huntly's) opinion was by far the greatest bulk of the cost which would fall upon the local authorities. He had taken the trouble of sending round for a Return to try to estimate the probable cost of repairs. He asked the Government whether they were trying to get some estimate but they felt that they were not able to do so. He therefore sent round for a Return to some thirty or forty councils in England and got Returns from nineteen. He based his calculations on the repairs the local authorities had to make to the provided schools, and he calculated the number of non-provided schools and the cost to the local authorities of taking them over. Taking these nineteen counties as typical for the whole of the country, he found that the estimated cost of the voluntary schools being taken over by the local authorities, upon the same basis as the charge entailed upon them by the provided schools, would be equal to a rate of l⅓d. in the pound for the whole country. He had since verified this estimate. In some counties the cost would be much higher than in others, but taking the average of the counties they would find that this was the cost per school for repairs alone. Their experience as a local authority in taking over the council schools—the schools which were built under the enlightened, intelligent management of the school boards—was that everyone of them was in a lamentable state. The walls were falling down, there were no sanitary arrangements, and the expense of taking them over had been very considerable. He was not alluding to structural alterations in his Returns. He only asked for ordinary repairs to provided schools. This being the case with the provided schools, if they took over only two-thirds of the non-provided or voluntary schools the whole of the proposed £1,000,000 grant would be swallowed up in repairs. A penny in the £ upon the rateable value of the country only fetched £725,000 a year. Therefore l⅓d. in the £ was exactly the £1,000,000 the grant would give them. If these calculations were anywhere near correct the whole of the grant which the Exchequer proposed would be swallowed up in the repairs of the schools they were to take over. But besides this, was no rent to be paid for these schools? That was another item. He presumed that some rent was to be paid.

LORD BELPER

, interposing, said he did not allude to any of the matters that were included under the heads which Mr. Birrell said would be amply met by the £1,000,000. He did not allude to them, not because he thought they were of no importance, but because he did not think it worth while.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

said he understood the noble Lord. Then there was the cost of the improvements to the transferred schools, and if their experience of the council schools was anything to go upon, they would have to do a great deal to meet the Board of Education's desires with regard to these schools. Morever, if they were not transferred to them they would have to provide new schools. These also had to come out of the £1,000,000 grant. Then there were the legal expenses in connection with all these matters. He thought it was the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council who said in the course of the debate that the question as to how this rate or grant was to be allocated could be safely left to the Board of Education, who would consider which were the deserving areas, the poor areas, and how the grant was to be distributed and that it was to be allocated, not to provide merely for the expenses they had alluded to, but according to the high knowledge, sense, and wisdom of the Board of Education. He had heard that the Board deprecated excessive work being put upon it, but if ever there was an invidious task put upon a public department it was to discriminate in a grant, to decide between rich and poor, between the local authorities which had been extravagant and those which had been economical, and then to have to meet all the arguments and all the entreaties and all the anger of those who were dissatisfied with the distribution. He considered that there was nothing more absurd than to leave it to the Department to decide as to how the grant was to be distributed and to share it out—it was the most ridiculous form of administration that could possibly be conceived. What they asked for was this. If they were going to pass the Bill as an amending Act to the Act of 1902—if they wished to transfer property from one person to another, let the Government come forward and say they would provide the necessary funds, so that they would not have to fall back upon the ratepayer for any increase. He had heard that evening, he thought From the front Bench, a sort of plea on behalf of the ratepayers, that their interests were to be considered in the fixing of rents. He would ask the noble Earl the President of the Council this—if at one moment they were asked to consider what rent they should charge for their schoolhouses in the interests of the ratepayers, if they were asked as local authorities to do everything they could to administer the Act economically, to see that there was no extravagance in its management, and to do their best to see that everything was efficiently done, what encouragement was it to know that there was a department above them which might the next moment override all that, because West Ham or some other place, having built expensive palaces for their children, were heavily rated, and were therefore to have for the purpose of reducing those heavy rates a large portion of the grants that ought to go elsewhere. For these reasons he pleaded that whatever words might be used—whether those his noble friend had moved, or the words he himself had suggested—the Government should distinctly say that whatever was done in administering this Act the funds necessary were to be provided from the Exchequer to meet the cost of the Act.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

regretted they had not heard from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council a fuller speech on this most important question. He could not but think that this question with regard to the so-called million which was to be devoted to the purposes of education had never been fully explained.

THE EARL OF CREWE

Why so-called million?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

thought he would be able to prove that the million would not be sufficient. He had one very occasion that this question had arisen endeavoured to extract from the noble Lord the President of the Council some reason as to the sum which had been allocated, and he thought naturally, knowing the difficulties there were in dealing with Chancellors of the Exchequer that in all probability there was no reason to be given why a million should be the sum mentioned, but that it was the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to give to this grant. He did not know how the sum was arrived at, and he would like to have from the noble Earl some reason going into it more closely than he had done in the comparatively short speech to which time had limited him.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I can assure the noble Marquess that my speech was not in the least limited by considerations of time, and I am afraid I shall not be able to add to it.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said he hoped someone would be able to tell them a little more on the subject. The noble Earl had alluded to the fact that in the Act of 1902, there was a grant of 4s. per head per child. On this matter he spoke subject to correction. He only became Minister for Education when the Bill was more than half way through the House of Commons, and he had not been able in the short time at his command, to refresh his memory on that point, and if he was incorrect, he would appeal to their Lordships' indulgence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion gave a grant of 4s. per head per child, and did not take into consideration—and he thought he was quite right—what was the rate per child in the districts in which that rate was levied. It was given, he thought, absolutely independently of what was the rate per child on the local rate.

THE EARL OF CREWE

It was given irrespective of the actual amount of the rate. It was given in respect of the number of children and of the amount which a rate would produce, but it was not given in respect of the actual amount.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said that was his point. It was given per head per child, not what the child cost the rate. That being so, he did not know that the argument of the noble Earl in regard to their having fixed that rate per child was germane to the question before the Committee.

His noble friends Lord Belper and the Marquess of Huntly, who, like so many of their Lordships, were fully acquainted with the question of local government expenses, were naturally looking with terror, if he might use the word, to an additional imposition on the rates already very heavily burdened. He thought it was the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, who very justly said that it was difficult to deal with financial matters in their Lordships' House because it was, to a certain extent, a question of privilege; but although a question of privilege it was of great advantage that they should discuss these matters, for the simple reason that a great number of the Members of the House took a great interest in their own local concerns. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House was the first chairman of the West Riding County Council, and his services were of great advantage to them, and if they looked round the House they would see a great number of noble Lords, who, though, perhaps, not occupying similar distinguished posts, had still occupied important positions in their various counties, and could give their Lordships enormous assistance in considering the question of local government from whatever point of view they looked at it. He thought the speech of Lord Belper, who occupied an important position in Nottinghamshire, would be of enormous assistance to their Lordships. He had related his experience with regard to local government in Nottinghamshire and had reiterated the cry which was going up from all parts of the country, "Do not add to our rates." He had stated with perfect truth that the Act of 1902 had added materially to the rates of agriculturists in the rural districts, and had created a great amount of dissatisfaction in consequence. He agreed with every word that fell from his noble friend, and he reiterated that if they were going still further to add to that rural rate by this Bill the cry that had been heard would be child's play to what it would be in the future. Therefore it was that he thought the £1,000,000 proposed to be given under the Bill to meet expenses—though what the expenses were he could not gather—ought to be fully accounted for by whoever was in charge of the measure. He had before him the speech of his noble friend the Lord President of the Council made on 23rd October, in which he stated— I have to say that the extra charge thrown on the taxes under the Bill is the sum of £1,000,000 provided by Clause 12, added to the expenses of the Commission formed under Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill.… All that we can say is that in naming this sum of £1,000,000—named, of course, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to his Budget—we considered that these charges were sufficiently provided for. He thought that was a very vague way of explaining the manner in which this £1,000,000 was to be expended. Then in reply to his noble friend Lord Avebury on the 29th October, and in reply to his noble friend the Earl of Camperdown, the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council said nothing as to how the amount had been arrived at. But he went on to give them the useful information that— Any further expense will fall upon the rates.' That was a point upon which his noble friends Lord Belper and the Marquess of Huntly had, he thought, dwelt with great force. According to this there was to be an extra expenditure to fall upon the rates. He hoped they would hear before the debate concluded that this £1,000,000 had been so satisfactorily accounted for that there would be no extra expense falling upon the rates, but keeping in mind the words of the noble Earl that there was to be extra expense on the rates he considered that the interests of the ratepayers required to be protected. The Act of 1870 was a long time to look back to, but their Lordships had undoubtedly read the Act very closely, and would recall to mind the famous speech of Mr. Forster, in which he said that it was almost impossible for the education rate to rise to more than 3d. in the £. He asked their Lordships—if they lived in the parish of St. George's what were their education rates at the present moment? Bearing these facts in mind, he thought the ratepayers had a right to look with some apprehension at the Government's proposal. How was this round sum of money to bear any relation to the possible expenses of the local education authority under the Bill? Again, the Lord President of the Council said on the 23rd October— It is impossible to say to what sum these additional charges will amount. To do that, you would have to look into the minds of many thousands of people, under conditions for which no certain data exists. He was looking into the minds of thousands of people. What were they thinking of at the present moment? He thought they had a right to ask the noble Lord to give them some idea of what would be in the minds of these thousands of people if they were asked to pay a far higher rate for education than they had been asked to do before this Bill was introduced.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I should explain that the thousands of people were the members of the local authorities who will have to bargain with the other thousands of people representing the owners, and it is impossible without looking into their minds to know what terms they will arrive at.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said that was his point. The Government seemed in absolute ignorance of the thousands who were going to object to this, as well as the thousands who, according to the noble Earl, were going to appreciate it. It was, he thought, most important that they should know what was the opinion of the Government as to the minds of these people. MR. Birrell stated in introducing the Bill that the actual cost which would be thrown upon the local education authority as a consequence of the Bill could not be estimated at the present moment with any approach to certainty. That was the reason he asked why £1,000,000 was fixed upon. A most extraordinary feature in the introduction and carrying through of this Bill had been the manner in which Ministers had made speeches of the most reckless character, which were not borne out by what they introduced into their Bill, and which were never explained so far as he could gather by noble Lords opposite. He believed himself that the expenditure would be far greater than the £1,000,000 which the noble Earl and the Chancellor of the Exchequer so happily considered would be enough to meet the emergencies of the moment. He was not one of those who had gone very closely into the figures as to what might be the extra expenditure forced upon the country by this Bill, which, he ventured to say the country did not want but for which they would eventually have to pay, and he therefore, apologised for quoting from a paper whose opinions he did not think noble Lords opposite would repudiate. In the Westminster Gazette, which he always read with great interest, he saw a paragraph on the 14th of this month stating that at a meeting of the Executive Council of the Education Committees of England and Wales, Sir George Doughty gave the true cost of the Bill. In introducing the Bill, Mr. Birrell said the education grants would be increased by £1,000,000 annually to cover the increased cost, but according to Sir George Doughty a further sum of £2,714,000 would have to be found from the rates. Had noble Lords opposite any reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement although, as far as he could gather from their own statements and speeches, they declared that £1,000,000 per annum would cover the cost?

* LORD FITZMAURICE

said that probably most members of the Committee could not have failed to feel a certain sense of unreality about this discussion. Although they were discussing a matter essentially concerned with facts and figures, owing to the position of their Lordships' House in regard to matters of finance they were not only in a comparatively, but in an almost entirely helpless position, because they were not in the position which the House of Commons would be in when a financial matter had been put down for consideration, and Estimates and full details were provided a long time beforehand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was, however, the last person to complain that there should be on that occasion a discussion on the financial aspects of the Bill. On the contrary, he had already, during the preliminary discussion on going into Committee expressed not only his personal obligation, but the obligation which his colleagues with whom he sat on that Bench, felt to the noble Marquess who had himself joined in the discussion that evening, for the speech and observations he made last summer, during the debate on the Second Reading, in connection with the financial aspect of the Bill, and he then expressed their regret that owing to the comparatively greater interest taken in the controversial and religious aspects of the Bill, those very important aspects of the question to which he alluded had not met with the full recognition at the time which the Government felt they deserved. And again that evening he thought they were indebted to the noble Marquess and to his noble friend who spoke in their Lordships' House with a special claim on this matter, being Chairman of the County Councils' Association, for having again referred to these questions, but nevertheless it was clear that, especially at this stage, they were in a comparatively helpless position, because they were not in the position of a Committee of Supply in the House of Commons, voting money for education, or of the Committee of the House of Commons on the Education Bill looking forward to discussing ultimately the details of finance in Committee of Supply. He only alluded to these facts in order that he should not appear in any way disrespectful to the noble Lords who had spoken if he pointed out that, situated as they were, it was exceedingly difficult for them to supply the facts and figures, even if they existed more fully than he thought they did, which they were called upon to supply, and, to a certain extent, were censured for not having supplied before. Some allusion had been made to previous Education Bills, and the noble Marquess who had just spoken had referred to certain statements made by Mr. Forster at the time of the Bill of 1870. He said, if he understood him correctly, that Mr. Forster had at that time been able to give certain clear pledges as to expenses to the Committee of the House of Commons. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House was President of the Council, and, under the arrangement which then subsisted, he was Minister for Education, and his recollection did not entirely tally with that of the noble Marquess opposite as to the statement made at that time by Mr. Forster. He (the noble Marquess) did not think that Mr. Forster ever pledged himself nor did he think it likely that Mr. Forster would have pledged himself, being a very prudent and cautious statesman, to any such positive assertion upon the question of expense as that which the noble Marquess opposite stated he had made.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I may be wrong—it may have been Mr. Gladstone who stated it. It is certain that in the debate on the Act of 1870 it was declared to be almost impossible for the education rate to rise to more than three pence in the pound.

* LORD FITZMAURICE

said he was aware that that statement had very often been attributed to Mr. Forster. He had stated on behalf of the noble Marquess who sat on that Bench that it did not tally with his recollection. But let him assume that the statement was made by Mr. Forster—and they all knew that the education rate under the Act of 1870 very greatly exceeded the sums originally named—was not that a warning against indulging in premature statements? That, after all, was the gist of their position. When the Government were asked "Is the rate going to be increased in this or that place?" all they could say was that they could not give any positive pledge in regard to any particular place, because the circumstances were so infinite and various. They were now at a preliminary stage in finance. All that this clause did was to say that a million of money would be voted in addition to sums which were already voted, and that that million was given on account of the increased expenses of the Act; but if they were asked to say that the rate would be increased here or would not be increased there they were asked to give information which, from the very nature of the circumstances, it was impossible to give. The noble Marquess who had just spoken and who introduced this subject on the Second Reading of the Bill had with admirable industry obtained and with perfect sincerity quoted from nineteen counties certain facts and figures in regard to the probable character of the expenses connected with the repairs which might have to be met under the Bill. He would point out to the noble Marquess, without in the least impugning the facts which he had given, how very misleading it would be to suppose that the facts and figures which he had collected in regard to these nineteen counties, even assuming them to be correct in every detail, were necessarily a sure guide to others, because those who were connected with the administration of county councils knew perfectly well that since 1902 the course and conduct of different county councils in regard to this particular matter of repairs had been as different as possible. If he was not taking up too much of the time of the Committee he would give one single illustration from his own experience. The county council with which he had been connected took a very strong line after the Act of 1902 in regard to the question of repairs. They called upon all the voluntary schools to put their house in order. They scheduled all the schools in the county under three heads, a, b, and c, and called upon them to carry out all these repairs under the three different heads in three years. That had meant, naturally, a very great cost in structural repairs, not to the county councils, but to those voluntary managers. They had had to put their house in order. In a neighbouring county across the border—he need not mention the name—a different line was adopted. They decided to wait, and the result had been that hardly anything had been done by the voluntary managers in spending money on repairs.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

The Returns I gave only referred to provided schools. They did not include any voluntary or non-provided schools.

* LORD FITZMAURICE

said he was aware of that. He was coming to the fact of the probable cost of this Act in regard to repairs in the future. Naturally, that depended very largely upon what had happened in the past. Supposing this Bill became law, it was perfectly clear that the amount of expenditure which would have to be incurred by the county educational authority in regard to structural repairs in the voluntary schools, which would become provided schools and therefore be thrown upon the county rate, aided by Government grants, would be enormously larger than those expenses to be incurred in the county where nearly the whole of this work had already been done, and had been thrown by a wise policy upon the structural funds which were now entirely under the control of the voluntary school managers. He might be told that in making the arrangements for rental that different state of things would be taken into account. That was perfectly true, but then the Committee would see that all these facts, taken together, pointed to the conclusion that they could not possibly lay down any general canon or law, and say that they were in a position to answer such questions as the Government had been asked, or to state whether in regard to any particular district and how much extra expense would be thrown upon the rates, even in regard to this question of repairs. If they went beyond that and dealt with all those large questions which had been legitimately raised by the noble Marquess and by his noble friend, they were clearly entering into the regions of the unknown. What they had said was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to his view of what was financially possible and according to such calculations as the Board of Education had been able to furnish him, had come to the conclusion that a million of money fairly represented the principal increased cost arising from this Bill.

LORD BELPER

For certain purposes under the Bill, but not for certain purposes that I gave.

* LORD FITZMAURICE

said he was only repeating what had been said by the Lord President of the Council, and had been trying to point out that it was impossible to enter into the details suggested by the inquiry of his noble friend, and by the Amendments which he and the noble Marquess had placed upon the Paper. And if he wanted to find an encouragement for the cautious policy which the Government had adopted in regard to making statements with reference to detail and any particular case he would find it in the history of what happened under the Act of 1902, because there, undoubtedly, a far larger attempt was made by the Government of the time to enter into the question of the details of the probable expenditure than the present Government had done. The tenth section of the Act of 1902 made an attempt, supported and fortified as it was by information presented to Parliament, to make Parliament believe—and no doubt the intention was a perfectly honest one—that the additional grants given under that Act would meet the probable expenditure under it. There were many—he thought he might say he was one of them—who expressed a great deal of scepticism on the point.

What was the result? They knew that the rates went up by leaps and bounds, and that it would have been far more prudent had the Government of 1902 contented themselves with a general statement and had not entered so much into the region of prophecy. The discontent was immediate. He had always admired the courage of that Government in walking into the lion's den, the den of that lion called the British ratepayer, and he was much inclined to think that it was the unpopularity of the' education rate which had something to do with a certain political revolution which had landed Ministers on the Treasury bench. There-fore, with the warning of those dangers behind them, surely the present Government had acted wisely in telling Parliament what they could tell it—that was to say, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give—and pointing out that there was a bona fide desire and belief that that amount would be sufficient to meet the immediate expenses of the Act coming into operation. The Bill was not, however, coming into full operation for some little time from now, and next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably be able then to give fuller information, at a time when the local authorities would be also in a position to furnish the Education Department with far fuller calculations than they could make at present.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

said that, unfortunately, by that time the Bill would be passed and the expenses would have to be paid by the ratepayers or taxpayers. The question was, did the Government believe this million would be sufficient? They were warning the Government that they were walking again into the lion's den, and that if the Bill went on the same scale as at present an event would happen which they would either regret or not regret—the present Government would incur that immense unpopularity which followed on the Act of 1902. It had been suggested that there was an unreality about this debate, but it appeared to him it was extremely real, and that there were issues which their Lordships were entitled to discuss quite as much as any other subject. It was partly for this reason that he rose to put in a protest against the view that had been expressed that because their Lordships' House could not vote upon finance they should not discuss it.

THE EARL OF CREWE

said he certainly did not mean to imply that. All he meant to imply was that the discussion of details this evening was premature.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

thought the noble Earl went further than that, and said that they could not deal with these matters. The noble Earl rather put it to their Lordships that they were really upon an academic question, and that they could not have estimates submitted to them. There was no reason why a careful memorandum should not be prepared giving more information than they had at present. The question was, what could they do by this debate? They could do something that was not always possible in the other House, and that was to debate the matter, and endeavour, if nothing else, to elicit information which was at the back of the minds of Ministers. There was one question which had not been answered. Did the Board of Education merely consider such questions as repairs and rent in calculating the £1,000,000, or did they consider the increased cost to be incurred all down the line by the administration of this Act? There would be increased payments for correspondence, medical inspection, and in various other directions, even at headquarters. His noble friend, who understood this matter as well as anybody, said it had been computed by county council authorities that the additional expense would be likely to equal the £1,000,000 which the Board of Education had calculated for particular services. Was it calculated that such expenditure would fall within or outside that £1,000,000? If it were outside the £1,000,000, did it not show that it was really the duty of those Members of their Lordships' House who were so thoroughly acquainted with this matter to point out that, although the £1,000,000 might or might not be adequate for the purposes to which Mr. Birrell intended it should apply, there was beyond that an expense that would fall upon the taxpayer or ratepayer? In other words, there was already foreseen what was feared, but not foreseen in the case of the other Acts, namely, that this Bill would impose an immensely larger burden either on the taxpayer or on the ratepayer than was estimated by His Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF CREWE

said it would certainly not be accurate to say that the prospective cost of each particular item had been accurately calculated by the Board of Education.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN

Accurately, or not at all?

THE EARL OF CREWE

said they had been considered, but he could not say that they had been calculated in the sense in which the noble Viscount meant calculated, and that applied equally to the charges named by his right hon. friend. They had not attempted to calculate the £1,000,000 itself, and, therefore, anything which, in the opinion of noble Lords, might lead to that £1,000,000 being exceeded had equally not been calculated. The subjects mentioned by his right hon. friend as being likely to be covered by the £1,000,000 would, no doubt, leave a certain margin, but whether that margin would be sufficient to meet the other charges, such as medical inspection, he certainly was not able to say. But, speaking generally, he must say that, although these various items appeared in the Bill, it appeared to them that the time to discuss whether the sum allocated was enough would be far more appropriate to the time when the Bill which was to include all the grants was before the House. Then, if noble Lords were able, as they thought, to prove their case that it was inevitable that, in certain cases, the rates must necessarily rise in consequence of this legislation, they would have a more or less good case to make out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But they must not be taken as accepting at this stage all the calculations county councils chose, in a somewhat nervous moment such as the present, to make. These calculations—a good many of which they had seen—varied in the most singular manner, and the Government were not at all prepared to admit in each case the basis on which those who made the calculations seemed to rely. The noble Marquess opposite had carefully guarded himself from adopting the rather startling figures named by Sir George Doughty at the recent meeting of the Education Committees. He had no conception on what those figures were founded, but he should be very sorry to be regarded as agreeing in any way with the suggestion that something like £2,500,000 or more would be needed apart from the sum the Government had allowed for.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

observed that the noble Earl had attempted again to put off the consideration of this grant of £1,000,000 which was really not discussed at all in another place. They would be aware that owing to the operation of the closure this grant was practically not dealt with in another place, and now their Lordships' House was asked to wait until next year to deal with a question which, according to the noble Lord's own confession, this House was unable adequately to deal with. If their Lordships' were not to be allowed to deal with this question they might at least ask that the Government should have it properly considered in another place, and he ventured to say that many of their Lordships who had given long years to the administration of educational affairs in their own counties had at least a right to express some opinion as to what the probable effect of this Act on expenditure would be. There was nobody more qualified than Members of this House—composed as it was largely of men who had given much time to local affairs—to examine and probe into these questions.

THE EARL OF CREWE

said he had never suggested it was anything but proper to discuss this matter. His observations with regard to the postponement of the question applied equally to the other House.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

said he apologised to the noble Earl. He was confusing the noble Earl with his noble friend Lord Fitzmaurice.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said he did not make any such observations.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

said in that case he must also apologise to the noble Lord. Whatever might have been the statements of the representatives of His Majesty's Government, there stood in the Bill this clause asking for £1,000,000 to be devoted to the purposes of the Bill, and when a Member of the Government got up and told the House that they had no basis of calculation as to whether it would or would not meet the expense he thought the Government were somewhat misleading the country. £1,000,000 were to be provided by the taxpayers for the purposes of the Bill. Was that £1,000,000 sufficient or not? If not, why was it not changed to £2,000,000? If it were, why not present the basis on which the expense had been calculated? On these grounds the discussion had been a very profitable one as tending to show to the country that there was no basis for the expenditure which the Government had estimated. The clause was totally misleading as to what the cost of the Bill would be. For all they knew the figures of Sir George Doughty that the Bill was going to cost £3,500,000 to the country might be accurate. Those figures might be right or wrong, but the Government had the best means of knowing, and the country would have some right to complain when they found that the Bill was going to cost £3,500,000 after having been told that the cost would be only £1,000,000.

* THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said noble Lords opposite seemed to think that the Government had been inclined to complain of this discussion as being irregular or improper. That was not at all the view the Government took. Of course their Lordships had a perfect right to discuss this financial provision, but not to deal with it by way of Amendment. He did not deny that the discussion had been a valuable one; but he was bound to say that he thought the Government would be exceedingly unwise if they committed the mistake of other Governments and ventured into prophecies. By the courtesy of the noble Marquess opposite he had a statement made by Mr. Forster in 1870, which fully bore out his belief that it was an exaggeration to say that Mr. Forster had said it was incredible or impossible that the expenditure should exceed 3d. in the £. The extract from the statement of Mr. Forster was— But should it exceed 3d. in the £—and I do not believe it will amount to anything like that sum in the vast majority of cases—there is a clause in the Bill which stipulates that there shall be a considerable extra grant made. He had heard that statement about Mr. Forster and 3d. in the £ for many years, and it only showed that prophecies of that kind were not wise. Everybody was aware that the expenditure on education in this country would go on increasing from year to year. Nobody was more inclined than Mr. Forster to take any opportunity that might offer to screw up the standard of education. If the prophecy were erroneous—he, however, did not think it was, because he believed it referred to the state of things at that time—but if it were erroneous, no less erroneous was the estimate of the late Government in respect of the Act of 1902. It was not a judicious thing to make statements of that kind, and the present Government were not going to do so on this occasion. Next session there would be ample opportunity to discuss the matter.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said that the noble Marquess had laid down a sound doctrine, which he hoped would always find acceptance in this House, when he admitted the right of their Lordships to discuss these financial questions. They had had an interesting and instructive discussion, and they had obtained virtually from the Government a frank admission of what had always been suspected—namely, that this figure of £1,000,000 was a shot, and nothing more than a shot. When the Bill was recommended to the people as a measure which was not likely to cost more than the sum mentioned in the clause, he thought that the people would now understand what such anticipations were worth. The Government said that they would not undertake to favour the House with a prophecy as to the expense. Everyone knew the adage, "It is unwise to prophesy unless you know"; and as the Government did not know, they were wise not to prophesy. Their Lordships must be content to pass the Bill in absolute ignorance of its financial aspects. That was the fact brought out more clearly than ever in the discussion which had just taken place.

LORD BELPER

did not think that the points he had raised had been answered. He had pointed out that besides the sum set aside by the Minister for Education for certain purposes which he had specified, there were other charges in the Bill which would entail a considerable expenditure, and he had asked whether a sum would be set aside to meet those charges also. They were told that any statements on the subject were premature. Why was it premature to set aside in one case but not in another? He did not ask the Government to prophesy what the matters he had referred to would cost, but to say whether or not if they cost anything they would meet it by a grant. That question had never been answered. The only other point was the question upon whom the burden would fall, and the answer he had received to that was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no doubt be anxious to take care that the rates should not be high. He had never heard a poorer consolation offered, because his experience of Chancellors of the Exchequer was that they were much more anxious to prevent the taxes rising than the rates rising, and therefore if the ratepayer had to be content with that, he had a very small crumb of comfort. He thought their Lordships had a right to raise this question, and it had been of very great interest. It was not discussed in the other House. He hoped the result of the discussion would be that the Government would consider more than they appeared to have considered so far what were the charges to be thrown on the unfortunate ratepayers, and that on a future occasion at all events this discussion would bear some fruit. He withdrew his Amendment. He did not know whether it overstepped the lines of privilege, but he was quite sure that when the Bill was brought in next year the House of Commons would introduce whatever they liked without regard to this Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Clause 13 agreed to.

*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN- TERBURY moved to insert a new clause providing that the Board of Education may recognise as a State-aided school any school which, though not a public elementary school provided by the local education authority, fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Code of regulations for public elementary schools for the time being in force in regard to management, premises, accommodation, equipment, teaching staff, curriculum, and inspection, and providing certain conditions for such recognition. He said that when discussing Clause 5 he foreshadowed the possibility that he might at a later stage suggest some larger development of the provision which that clause contained for allowing what were called State-aided schools. The fact that he had an Amendment of this sort on the Paper seemed to have given rise outside the House, and perhaps in the House, in some quarters, to a very unfortunate misapprehension, which he desired to remove as speedily as possible. It had been said that he had laid down here an alternative scheme which might take the place of the 'concessions' contained in the Bill, and he believed it had been suggested that the alleviations set forth in Clauses 3 and 4 might be supplanted by the acceptance of some such clause as the one he now-proposed. He had been told that if this clause were accepted it ought in itself to go far to satisfy the denominationalist claims. That was a total and absolute misapprehension of his intention. Nothing of the kind existed in his mind; he had no thought whatever of this being a concession to denominationalists as such. He had put the clause on the Paper, not as representing in any way the Church or church views, but simply as an educationist, with the idea of helping forward educational progress, and with no direct bearing at all on the denominational questions which might conceivably be involved in it. He desired most strongly to emphasise the fact that those who sat upon the episcopal Bench, at least as truly as those who sat on other Benches in this House, desired to act as educationists in this controversy and not merely as ecclesiastics or representatives of the church. They wanted to set forward the progress of education, and it was in that capacity that he proposed this Amendment. He believed all educational authorities, not only here, but on the Continent of Europe and across the Atlantic were agreed that educational progress depended on a due opportunity for variety and elasticity rather than upon a mere stiff rigidity and uniformity. It was for that reason he desired that they should place in this Act, if it should become an Act, something that would recognise the possibilities of development in different ways. While the analogy that might be drawn between England and Scotland must never be pressed too far, any one who knew the educational circumstances of Scotland was well aware of the satisfactory condition in which not a few Scottish schools stood to-day which were State-aided schools. There were 355 such schools in Scotland, forming a little over 11 per cent. of the whole elementary schools in the country. Those schools were kept in a wholesome state, because the Education Department saw that they were not allowed to become schools of an inferior type. His desire was to screw up the educational efficiency of such schools to so high a point that they never could be regarded as a reversion to an inferior system. It depended simply on the administrative work of the Board of Education whether the schools thus started were to be as efficient and thorough as they might be made to be. He did not anticipate that if this Amendment were accepted a great number of such schools would spring at once into being, but he hoped that before many years it would be found that some of the most efficient and active schools in England would be schools coming under the category described. Scotland thus would, not for the first time, set an example to England, and if England followed it he believed she would go far to improve her educational system. They had already accepted the existence of State-aided schools, but under certain limits, and, as it appeared to him, un-satisfactory conditions. They were to come into existence only when the manner in which the extended facilities were worked by the local authority was not satisfactory to the owners of the schools. But the object of his Amendment was to bring about a natural and legitimate development of State-aided schools. It was quite possible that the denominational difficulty might be smoothed in some districts by the adoption of his clause. But that was not the reason why he submitted it. He submitted it to their Lordships solely in the interests of education, and simply because he believed there would be a gain in having this kind of school alive and vigorous alongside of their other plans.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause:—'(1) The Board of Education may recognise as a State-aided school, efficiently contributing to the public education of the district in which it is situated, any school which, though not a public elementary school provided by the local education authority, fulfils the conditions laid down in the code of regulations for public elementary schools for the time being in force in regard to management, premises, accommodation, equipment, teaching staff, curriculum and inspection, and in respect of which an application is made to them for recognition by the managers. But it shall be a condition to any such recognition that—(a) The Board of Education are satisfied that the teachers are adequately remunerated, regard being had to the rate of salaries paid by the local education authority to teachers in public elementary schools in the area; (b) the managers guarantee the use and the cost of the upkeep of the school buildings and premises and all other cost of maintaining the school (except such part of the cost as may be defrayed by Parliamentary grants) for a period of three years, which guarantee shall be renewable from time to time; (c) the regulations contained in paragraphs one, two, and throe of Section 7 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (a copy of which shall be conspicuously put up in the school) are complied with in the case of the school. (2) Where a school is recognised under this section as a State-aided school the Board of Education shall, notwithstanding anything in the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, or in this Act, pay to that school the Parliamentary grants which would be payable in respect of the school or of the scholars attending the school if it were a public elementary school provided by the local education authority. (3) A State-aided school shall be treated as a public elementary school for the purpose of the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Act, 1898. (4) A State-aided school shall be under the control of the managers, who, in addition to their other powers of management, shall have power to make provision for giving religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and to charge school fees not exceeding ninepence per week, and to refuse admission to children for whom they have not sufficient accommodation or sufficient teaching staff. (5) A State-aided school and its registers shall at all reasonable times be open to the school attendance officers of the local education authority, but shall not be otherwise controlled or maintained by the authority. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of a local education authority to provide such school accommodation in public elementary schools provided by it as it may consider desirable for any district in which a State-aided school is situated, and in so doing the authority shall have regard to the wishes of parents who do not desire their children to attend any such State-aided school.

House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

House adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.