HL Deb 09 December 1908 vol 198 cc410-42

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Herschell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (2), which deals with the provision of "accommodation, apparatus, equipment, and service for the preparation and supply of meals to pupils attending schools within the district," by omitting the words "and service."

Amendment moved— In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'and service.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said the effect of the Amendment, as he understood it, would be to debar the school board from paying the wages of an attendant or cleaner, for instance, who helped in the preparation of the meal and in serving out the food. It seemed simpler that the preparation of the food and the supply of the meal should be regarded rather as a whole, and that there should be no artificial separation between one part of the expense involved and the other. It would be difficult to carry out in practice, and he could not see that it would effect any very great saving in expense. The services of the children themselves would be utilised as far as possible, as indeed they generally were at present, both in the preparation and in the service of the meal; but there would, of course, be need for the superintendence of a grown-up person to see that there was no waste. He understood that, in addition to the voluntary contributions, the school boards did in the present instance contribute a certain amount, although it was difficult to ascertain exactly the proportion. The effect of the clause was merely to remove a doubt as to the legality of an expenditure which was already incurred by many school boards in rural districts. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved the insertion of a proviso to the effect that in the exercise of their powers under subsection (2), a school board should not give any undue preference to pupils attending schools under their control over pupils attending State-aided schools within their district. The clause was, he said, a permissive one, and the object of the Amendment was to ensure that the local authority should deal equally with the various classes of schools, and should not refuse to one class of schools advantages which they conferred on another. The Amendment was in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would be able to accept it.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 26, after the word 'provided' to insert the words 'Provided also that in the exercise of their powers under this subsection, a school board shall not give any undue preference to pupils attending schools under their control over pupils attending State-aided schools within their district.'"—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said that to accept this Amendment would infringe the principle of the provision and would have the effect of compelling a school board, if they set up an apparatus to provide meals, on payment, for children attending their own schools, to do precisely the same for any voluntary school in the district. To do that was impracticable. He could not see that any hardship would result from the provision as it stood in the Bill, for if there were necessitous children attending a voluntary school for whom food was required, that would be covered under Clause 6 quite irrespective of the school the children were attending.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (3)— (3) In bringing opportunities for education within easier reach of children in outlying parts of their district, whether by providing means of conveyance, or paying travelling expenses for teachers or pupils to and from their homes, or defraying the cost of lodging pupils in convenient proximity to a school … by inserting, after the word "district" the words "distant not less than three miles from a school."

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 2, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'distant not less than three miles from a school.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD HERSCHELL

feared that this Amendment would prove unworkable. It would be extremely difficult to lay down a provision that a conveyance should be afforded to children who inhabited a part of the district three miles from the school, and that this conveyance should not be allowed to take up any children whom it might pass on the way between that limit and the school. He thought the matter was one which might quite safely be left to the discretion of the local authority. One rather important point was that there were many districts with a scattered population where a school board was virtually obliged to maintain several small and relatively inefficient schools, but if they were given a power of providing conveyances, without restriction as to distance, they might be able by this means to bring children to one central school, with the result that not only could that school be made more efficient in its working, but also, to some extent, expense would be saved. Of course, any improper use which might be made of the conveyance would at once be put a stop to by the Department on representation being made to them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved to insert, at the end of subsection (3), a similar proviso to that which he had moved to subsection (2) but withdrawn. He hoped the Government would be prepared to consider this Amendment in a more friendly spirit.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 9, after the word 'otherwise,' to insert the words 'Provided that in the exercise of their powers under this subsection, a school board shall not give any undue preference to pupils attending schools under their control over pupils attending State-aided schools within their district."—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

appealed to the Government to accept this Amendment on the ground of their argument for refusing to accept the last Amendment. The noble Lord had said that it would be absurd that a conveyance afforded to children living three or four miles away should not take up a child living nearer the school. Take the corresponding case. Supposing a conveyance went to fetch children going to a board school, and close by were children going to, say, a Roman Catholic school, surely it would be unreasonable that those children should not be allowed the benefit of the conveyance. He did not think the Amendment would make any real difference, but it would put on the face of the Bill an instruction to the school board that they ought to consider such a case.

LORD HERSCHELL

said that subsection (3) did not define children attending any particular schools, but applied to all children.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

You mean that the subsection does already contain this provision?

LORD HERSCHELL

Subjection (3) applies to all children.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I am not very well acquainted with this matter, but it seems to me that the difference between the noble Duke's Amendment and the subsection as it stands is that there would be a compulsion upon the local authority not to give any preference to the children in the schools under their control, whereas, as the Bill stands, I imagine a preference would be given, but that, where possible, the authority would be in a position to take the other children. I think there is a difference.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought the Amendment a perfectly fair one. It was quite clear that under subsection (3) as it stood a preference might be shown.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said the provision in the subsection did not prohibit a school board from using its discretion; but, if the Amendment were adopted, it would be obligatory upon the board not to give any preference to pupils attending schools under their control.

LORD HERSCHELL

asked the noble Duke whether, in the circumstances, he would be prepared to let the matter stand over for further consideration on Report.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said this clause was almost certain to impose a very serious charge on the ratepayers. It provided that a school board might, and where required by the Department should, provide for the medical examination and supervision of the pupils attending schools within their district to such extent, and subject to such requirements, as might from time to time be prescribed by any code or minute of the Department. Therefore, by this clause they placed themselves entirely in the hands of the Department. He was more inclined to call their Lordships' attention to this clause because, in regard to the corresponding clause for England the other day, Lord Belper directed attention to the very great powers taken with regard to the amount of medical supervision which might be required. Lord Belper asked on that occasion, and he (Lord Camperdown) asked now, whether there was any intention on the part of the Treasury to contribute to this new charge upon the rates, the extent of which it was impossible to foresee.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

inquired whether there was any difference between "code" and "minute." As he understood it, a code meant the Education Code which was laid each year on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. To that, of course, either House could object if it contained improper provisions. But if a minute of the Department was simply intended, it would not come before Parliament. If that was so, he was bound to say there was some force in the contention of Lord Camperdown. The Department, he was sure, was not at all likely to be unreasonable, but perhaps everybody did not have such complete confidence in it as he had.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said that, by subsection (7) of the previous clause, it was provided that no such minute should come into force until it had lain for not less than one month upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament The omisssion of any such provision in Clause 4 would rather indicate that the minute there referred to would not be laid before Parliament.

LORD HERSCHELL

said the Department would undertake to lay any minute on this subject before Parliament.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

stated that his attention had just been called to the fact that in the statutory provisions dealing with the subject it was provided that no minute of the Scottish Education Department should be enforced until it had lain for not less than a month on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the provision in Clause 4 could not be put in force without Parliament having an opportunity of judging of its propriety.

LORD BELPER

said that, this being so, Scotland was in a much more favour able position than England in this matter. They had complained that with regard to England Memoranda were frequently issued which imposed considerable charges on local authorities without Parliament having any cognisance of them before hand, and he felt—

* THE EARL OF CREWE

I should be very unwilling to suggest that the noble Lord is out of order. I leave it to the noble Lord himself, as to whether he is in order.

LORD BELPER

said he was only referring to the fact that Scotland was fortunate in having an Education Department which dealt with it in a more reasonable manner than was the case in England.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Is the noble Earl satisfied?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

No; I have had no answer.

* LORD REAY

pointed out that in subsection (6) of Clause 17 there was a provision that where, under Section 4 of the Bill, a school board provide for the medical examination and supervision of the pupils attending schools within their district in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Committee or by the school board and in either case approved by the Department, there shall be paid in each year to the school board a sum equal to one-half of the cost incurred by them in making such provision. He thought that to a certain extent met the objections of his noble friend.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)

said it was impossible, in the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind, for the Government to make a statement in regard to matters which next year, no doubt, would come before Parliament in the usual course. It was well known that in the Education Bill of this year there were proposals for increasing the grants, and the then Minister for Education, Mr. McKenna, stated that it was to be understood that one of the reasons why increased grants were being proposed was to meet the expenses of the Act of last year providing for medical inspection. Beyond that answer he did not think the Government could go that evening. Of course, what applied to England in that matter would also apply, under equivalent grants, to Scotland.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said this clause made an important change in the law. It provided that Section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1883, should not longer have effect, and that in lieu thereof it should be enacted that— If it appears to a school board that the parent of any child without reasonable excuse is neglecting to provide efficient education for his child in terms of this Act, or failing to secure the regular attendance of his child at some public or inspected school, it shall be lawful for the school board, after due warning to the parent, to summon such parent to appear, with or without the child, before the school board at any meeting thereof, and to require from him every information and explanation respecting such neglect or failure of duty; and if he, or some person on his behalf, either does not appear or appears and does not satisfy the school board that he has not failed in such duty without reasonable excuse for such failure, it shall be lawful for the school board to order in writing that the child do attend some public or inspected school willing to receive him, and named in the order, being either such as the parent may select, or, if he does not select any, then such as the school board think expedient, and the child shall attend that school every time the school is open, or in such other regular manner as is specified in the order. He moved to omit from the centre of this provision the words "or some person on his behalf." At present, if a school board had doubt about the attendance of any children under its jurisdiction, or desired to get a compulsory order for attendance, it had to go to the sheriff to have the child ordered to attend. That was a certain safeguard to the parents that an unreasonable order would not be made. But this clause changed the law, and gave power to the school board not only to summon the parent, but to be judge in what was practically its own cause. He did not know that he objected to that so much, because in one respect it was more merciful to the parent, inasmuch as it obviated attendance at Court, with its consequent delays. But was it intended by these words which he proposed to delete to indicate that there was to be a regular process, a sort of tribunal set up by the school board, with the employment of a lawyer to attend and explain the case? If so, it would be introducing a new practice and one which he certainly could not support. On the other hand, it was possible that these words were only intended to imply that some friend might put in an appearance before the board on the parent's behalf. He did not think that would be very satisfactory. If there was to be only one attendance, the school board might reasonably hold their meeting in the evening, as many school boards did already, for the purpose of giving one of the parents of the child an opportunity of making a personal explanation. He did not think it would be satisfactory to have the explanation second-hand. It would be merely a hearsay statement, and would cause school boards really greater difficulty than if they held their meetings in the evening to enable parents to be present.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 11, to leave out the words "or some person on his behalf."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said the object of the words proposed to be omitted was simply to avoid cases of unnecessary hardship—cases, for instance, where a labourer might have to forego half or even a whole day's wages in order to attend, when, as a matter of fact, some other person well qualified to do so could make the necessary explanation, which in many cases would be found satisfactory, to the school board. But it would be still entirely within the discretion of the board in any particular case to say that they were not satisfied with the second-hand information and to require the parent to appear personally on another occasion, or, in default, to have an attendance order pronounced against him. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory to his noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to reduce the limit of age at which attendance at a school or continuation class may be required from sixteen to fifteen. This was, he said, the first of two classes of cases to which he adverted on Second Reading. The clause extended the age from fourteen to sixteen up to which pupils excused compulsory attendance could be obliged to continue attending evening classes. The present law was that at the age of twelve, after a certain standard had been passed, a school board might excuse attendance and impose attendance at an evening class for such period as might be still to run until the child arrived at the age of fourteen. He thought that entirely reasonable, because if the education was not kept up in some way or another the knowledge learned would not be assimilated but often lost. He thought that a limit of fifteen was as great a burden as should be imposed, having regard to the fact that it was presupposed that the child specially provided for was much cleverer than the average. It was only a child of good natural abilities and regular attendance at school who could pass the test necessary to get the exemption at twelve, and therefore it seemed to him that to put a compulsory burden upon such a child to continue up to the age of sixteen was excessive.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 4, to leave out the word 'sixteen' and to insert the word 'fifteen."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said that at present it was not within the power of school boards to require attendance at a continuation class beyond the age of fourteen, and one of the results of this was that most boards were very unwilling to grant exemptions at all, partly because they would lose grants thereby and partly because there was a strong feeling that the part time attendance for two winters which might be imposed was quite insufficient to make up for the loss to the child's education incurred through the interruption in its regular attendance at school. The object of the present clause was, really, to offer an inducement to school boards to grant exemption more readily in suitable cases, and it had been introduced very largely at the instance of bodies such as the chamber of agriculture and farmers associations, who had represented that there were many well grown and vigorous lads who might be allowed full exemption in order that they might acquire a taste for rural pursuits at a sufficiently early age. They had also expressed the view that if this exemption were granted they would see no objection to requiring part time attendance at school beyond fourteen for such time as might be thought necessary. The power of exemption rested with the school boards on the consideration of individual cases. Experience had shown that the boards were unwilling to grant exemptions freely if they had no power to secure attendance after fourteen, and it was doubtful whether an extension of the power to fifteen would effect any substantial change in their attitude. The original proposal of the Government was to extend the age to seventeen, and they somewhat reluctantly consented to sixteen as a compromise. They were not prepared to make any further concession in the matter, mainly for the reason that to do so would render the main object of the clause to a very great extent abortive. The age specified was, after all, the maximum age within which the board could prescribe conditions, and there was nothing to prevent a board accepting a lower age in any particular case. He regretted the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out subsection (3). The subjection ran— (3) It shall be lawful for a school board from time to time to make, vary, and revoke byelaws for requiring the attendance at continuation classes until such age not exceeding seventeen years, as may be specified in the byelaws, of young persons above the age of fourteen years within their district who are not otherwise receiving a suitable education, or are not specially exempted by the school board from the operation of the byelaws; and that at such times and for such periods as may in such byelaws be specified. Such byelaws may also require all persons within the district having in regular employment any young person to whom such byelaws apply to notify the same to the board at times specified in the byelaws with particulars as to the hours during which the young person is employed by them: Provided that no young person shall be required to attend a continuation class held beyond two miles measured along the nearest road from the residence of such young person. He believed that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated, on the Second Reading, that this provision came from Germany. He thought it worthy of Prince Bismarck in his very best days. His object in moving the omission of the subsection was to call attention to the very great advance which was being made therein in the direction of compulsion. In the event of a school board making a byelaw to compel young persons up to the age of seventeen years to attend continuation classes, it would be likely to lead to an extensive migration from the district. Those who wished to have this education were provided for under subsection (1), but this subsection empowered school boards to make byelaws requiring the compulsory attendance of young persons above the age of fourteen at continuation classes until they reached an age not exceeding seventeen years. He did not know whether he would persevere in his Amendment, because he was generally favourable to the Bill and did not wish to destroy any of its valuable provisions; but, at the same time, he thought it worth while to call attention to the character of this subsection.

Amendment moved— In page 7, lines 7 to 22, to leave out subsection (3)."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD HERSCHELL

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. The real answer to the points raised was that, although power was given to a school board to make these compulsory regulations, it was obvious that such a power would in no possible instance be exercised by a school board unless it had a very strong measure of public support behind it. There was also no doubt as to the great advantages which might be obtained from this. In the first place, it would only enable education authorities to do generally, where they had the support of public opinion, what many large employers of labour in the country, including several of the railway companies, had been doing for their apprentices. The principal advantages of the system were, in the first place, that it was a certain guarantee that the sums spent upon the earlier education of the children should not be thrown away by cessation of instruction: secondly, it ensured a certain continuation of discipline: and, thirdly,—and perhaps this was the most important point in view of the decay of the apprenticeship system—it enabled systematic instruction relative to particular trades to be provided for young persons between 14 and 17, which would, to some extent, at all events, mitigate the result of the breakdown of the apprenticeship system, and counteract the tendency on the part of youths to enter employment which, though for the moment sufficiently remunerative to attract them, did not lead to any permanent employment in later years. In view of all these considerations, he hoped the noble Earl would see his way not to press the Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said he had called attention to this subsection on the Second Reading, and had intended putting down the Amendment which the noble Earl had on the Paper. What he then said was publicly reported, and he had received appeals from friends, who were certainly authorities in the education world, not to press the Amendment. But let them look at what it was they were asked to do. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had made the best case he could. He had said the compulsory power would not be enforced until public opinion in the district wanted it, There were 972 school boards in Scotland. Was it really reasonable that Parliament should give to every one of those authorities the right to make a byelaw of this kind? And would it really result in any practical effect? Could they keep a lad of seventeen at school against his will? He believed they would do the greatest harm to the voluntary continuation schools if they drove into them a great number of reluctant lads and young women. At present it was not very easy to keep order in these institutions even when people attended voluntarily, but if people were driven in who did not desire to attend them matters would be reduced to positive chaos. He did not think it was of much moment whether they deleted this subsection or not, because his belief was that it would never be put in force. Therefore, if the noble Earl went to a division he would be bound to vote with him, because it was really legislating far in advance of any public opinion which might exist in the country at the present time.

* LORD REAY

hoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment. He considered, with many others, that this was one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill He thought the way in which it would be carried out would be that in urban districts there would be some agreement between educational authorities and employers of labour to put the subsection into practice, and in the rural districts, of course, it would be necessary to have the support of the farmers. Furthermore, these continuation classes would be gradually developed. He did not think that there was any risk that this compulsion would suddenly be sprung upon the population of Scotland in all the school board districts, and for the simple reason that at this moment there was a very limited supply of teachers duly qualified to give this instruction in the continuation classes. Therefore, the noble Lord might feel assured that this subsection would come into gradual operation. As an ideal, he thought it of the utmost importance that the subsection should be retained in the Bill, because sooner or later the general necessity of these continuation classes would be recognised throughout Scotland.

LORD AVEBURY

joined in the appeal to Lord Camperdown not to press the Amendment. The period from the age of 14 to 17 was a very critical one in the history of young people, and anything which would encourage their attendance at continuation schools was of the greatest importance. He agreed with Lord Reay that the provision was not likely to be put into operation on a very large scale at once, but he believed it would eventually tend materially to improve the educational system of the country.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

intimated that he would not press the Amendment. His real object in moving it was to call the attention of their Lordships to this subsection as an illustration of the doctrine of what was known as germs. This Bill provided that young men or young women might be required, under certain circumstances, to attend continuation classes up to the age of 17. The next Bill would require that they should attend them up to the age of 17 under any circumstances. And so they would go on. He would not, however, press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

LORD HERSCHELL

explained that the drafting Amendments standing in his name were designed to avoid the use of the word "national," which appeared to have no precedent in Acts of Parliament in this connection, and was certainly of a somewhat vague and indeterminate character. The object could be equally well attained by simply enacting that the expenditure in question, whatever it was, would have to be approved by the Department and embodied in Minutes to be laid before Parliament. The real sanction for expenditure would be the approval of Parliament in each particular case. It would not rest on the interpretation by the Department of the word "national."

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

LORD HERSCHELL moved the insertion of a proviso which he explained was designed to prevent an abuse that might be possible under the clause as it now stood. Hitherto some of the more enterprising school boards had provided, at considerable cost, secondary education which was available to, and made use of by, people in neighbouring parishes. These parishes, however, contributed nothing to the support of these schools, and, as this was felt to be an obvious injustice, the Amendment had been introduced to enable such boards to recover the cost of the education of such extraneous children from the education fund of the district.

Amendment moved— In page 16, line 2, after the word 'rate, to insert the words 'Provided that in the case of pupils residing temporarily within the said school board district for the purposes of their education, no payment shall be made under this subsection from the district education fund of any district other than that of which the school board district forms a part, except in respect of pupils receiving aid under or in conformity with the general scheme of bursaries for the district in which their parents or guardians are ordinarily resident to be framed as hereinafter provided.'"—(Lord Herschell.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought the Amendment was a very just one and a great improvement on the Bill. The word "temporarily" occurred in the Amendment and the word "ordinarily" in the clause. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider before the next stage whether those two words were necessary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HERSCHELL moved the addition of a new proviso, the object of which was, he said, to make the basis of payment under subsection (4) (a)—that was to say, in the case of endowed schools—correspond mutatis mutandis to what it was under subsection (1), in the case of schools under the board.

Amendment moved— In page 16, line 41, after the word 'reasonable,' to insert the words 'and provided also that in lieu of the deduction of income from all sources other than from school rate therein referred to there shall be deducted all income from grants made by the Department and from fees.'"—(Lord Herschell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

LORD HERSCHELL

explained that the Amendment standing in his name to this clause was necessary inasmuch as it was almost impossible, however careful a committee might be in fixing its scale of charges, to avoid incurring a deficit occasionally. There must, therefore, be some fund from which the deficit could be met. It was sufficiently clear, however, from the wording of the provision, that the intention was that such deficit should be accidental and occasional only. The Department must be satisfied that this was so before sanctioning the payment.

Amendment moved— In page 20, line 1, after the word 'defray,' to insert the words 'as nearly as may be,' and in line 2, after the word 'for,' to insert the words 'provided that a deficit occurring in any year, notwithstanding such adjustment may, with the approval of the Department, be paid out of the district education fund or funds.'"—(Lord Herschell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22:

LORD SALTOUN moved an Amendment, in subsection (1), to give power to unite a district "or part of a district." He thought it might occasionally happen that a portion of a district could be advantageously joined to an adjacent district.

Amendment moved— In page 21, line 28, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'or part of a district.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD HERSCHELL

accepted the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment designed to give more efficient control over the accounts of school boards. He said the clause as it stood gave no really efficient control, in spite of the large amount of money from Imperial funds disbursed by school boards. The accountant of the Scottish Education Department went through the accounts of school boards, and called attention, where necessary, to what he regarded as illegal payments, but there was no power whatever of enforcing his opinion, however gross the malversation might have been; and during the time he (Lord Balfour) was in office, cases arose where surcharges ought to have been made. As the Bill was first introduced, the Government proposed to apply to school board accounts the same form of audit as was now applied to parish council accounts; in other words, a professional accountant would go through the accounts, any ratepayer might inspect them and lodge any objections he might have with the auditor, the auditor made a proper report to the Scottish Education Department, and the Department then had discretion whether to surcharge or not. A good deal of objection was taken to that procedure, and many people urged that there should be an appeal to a Court of law for the purpose of deciding whether the payment was legal or illegal. To that he, personally, would have no objection; and in the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, there was a power of appeal allowed on the question whether the item in the accounts proposed to be surcharged was or was not illegal. But the Government, either on their own Motion, or as the result of pressure, had now inserted one of the most absurd clauses he had ever seen in a Bill. It was to this effect, that in the event of an illegal expenditure being made for the first time, the Department should draw the attention of the officer or person making the expenditure to the illegality, but should take no further steps. What would the officer or person making the payment care? The payment would have been made, and no power would exist of getting back the money, no matter how illegal the payment. The clause went on to say that if the school board did it again then the Department or the ratepayer might go to the Court of Session to have the payment declared illegal. But the payment would have already been declared illegal although there was no power to go further. Surely the proper course was to have objection taken to the payment in accordance with the practice in connection with parish council accounts. If the school board whose accounts were called in question thought the payment legal and that they had a case, they should be the persons to appeal to the Court. It was ludicrous to suppose that the procedure now in the clause would ever be put efficiently in force. Supposing a school board in the last year of office made an illegal payment. Nothing could be done. A completely new set of persons then came into office. Three years, it might be, afterwards, that board would be prejudiced by the fact that their predecessors had made an illegal payment. At least, that was how he read the clause. But if it meant that the illegality might again take place, then the clause was rendered even more ridiculous. All his Amendment provided was that, if a ratepayer took exception to the accounts, the auditor should report, and the Scottish Education Department should have discretion to surcharge or not, and if they did surcharge an appeal was given to the aggrieved party. That would give a reasonable safeguard for the proper disbursement of public money.

Amendment moved— In page 24, line 2, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'accountant of the'; in line 4, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'surcharge the same on the person or persons making or authorising them and'; in page 24, line 6, to leave out from the word 'and' to the end of the subsection, and after the word 'account' to insert the following new paragraphs: Provided that any person I aggrieved by such disallowance and surcharge I may, within the time and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Act of Sederunt, appeal against the same to either division of the Court of Session, who shall hear and determine such appeal, or in lieu thereof any person so aggrieved may, within fourteen days of receipt of notice of such disallowance and surcharge, appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, who shall have power, after considering the whole matter, to sustain or reject the said appeal; (f) if the Secretary for Scotland shall be of opinion that, although a disallowance or surcharge might be lawfully made, the subject-matter thereof was incurred under such circumstances as to make it fair and equitable that the disallowance or surcharge should not be made, he may on application authorise the accountant of the Department to abstain from making the same; (g) every sum determined by the accountant of the Department under this Act to be due from any person shall be paid by such person to the school board within fourteen days after such determination has been intimated to him, or, as the case may be, after the disposal of an appeal, and if such sum is not so paid it shall be the duty of the accountant of the Department to recover the same, and the school board shall reimburse him for his expenses, including a reasonable allowance for his time in so far as not recovered from the person surcharged.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said that, as far as he understood, the noble Lord agreed to the proposal of the Government up to a certain point—namely, to the point where the auditor discovered an expenditure which he considered to be illegal. The objections to the course which the noble Lord advocated were several. In the first place, it was very strongly contended by the representatives of school boards that a question of law ought not to be left to the decision of a single individual, who, however sound his judgment might be, would probably have had no legal training. Even though there was an appeal, it seemed hard that school boards, which had been proceeding in good faith and under the impression that they were incurring expenditure which was perfectly legal, should be put to the trouble and expense of an appeal at the discretion of a single individual. The clause as it stood was not open to this objection, for the decision as to whether or not the disallowance was to be made was not left to the auditor but to the Education Department, and even the Department could not proceed to make a surcharge without in the first place going to a Court of law and taking the opinion of the Court as to the legality or illegality of the expenditure incurred. The appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, when considered more fully, did not appear to be quite as strong an appeal as might at first sight be imagined. The accountant would be an officer in the Education Department, and the head of that Department was the Vice-President, who was responsible for the actions of those in his Department. They had, therefore, an appeal from the action of the accountant, for whom the Vice-President of the Department was responsible, to the Secretary for Scotland; but the Vice-President of the Department and the Secretary for Scotland were one and the same person. Therefore the appeal would not seem to rest on as strong grounds as might otherwise be the case. But, apart from this, the question of illegal expenditure was to a very large extent affected by experience obtained in the past of the number of cases in which it was likely to occur. He had received that morning an interesting communication from the chairman of the Edinburgh School Board, who wrote not only in that capacity, but also as chairman of the conference of school boards, stating very strongly his view that the clause as it stood was preferable to the Amendment of the noble Lord. Among other statements, this gentleman said that out of an aggregate expenditure of £58,000,000 during the last twenty-five years, the total disallowed throughout the whole of Scotland was only £2,000. Another point worthy of consideration was that a great deal of this so-called illegal expenditure arose from the fact that in preceding Acts of Parliament no provision was made for amending the law so as to meet the requirements that might in subsequent years grow up. Subsection (7) of Clause 3 in the present Bill did provide that where future experience should show that Amendments were necessary, they could be made by Minutes of the Department, which, of course, would not come into force until they had lain for not less than one month upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. He did not think, therefore, that the number of cases of illegal expenditure would be very great. They should not assume that any of the Boards would willingly, on the strength of the provision in the clause under discussion, incur expenditure which they knew to be illegal. There was, however, a remedy. Any ratepayer in the district at present possessed the power, by refusing to pay his rates, to bring the action of his local authority under the review of a Court of law in order to challenge what he deemed to be illegal expenditure, and that even on the first occasion.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the noble Lord had given no reason for the Government's change of opinion. The Government clearly thought some alteration necessary, because they proposed a stringent audit in the Bill as introduced. Why had they changed their opinion? The noble Lord had quoted a letter from the chairman of the school board of Edinburgh. That board had an honourable record, and he was the last person to suggest that the school board of a great city like Edinburgh would ever commit an illegal act. But during his experience at the Scottish Education Department over and over again boards in different parts of the country were proved to have been guilty of illegal expenditure, but it was useless to disallow it because they could neither get it back nor punish the offenders. He knew few ratepayers who would care to make themselves martyrs, and even if they did and their view was upheld there was no power to go further. He appealed to the Government to reconsider the absurdities and crudities of the clause as it stood.

LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

thought every precaution should be taken to ensure that the money of the ratepayer was properly expended, and that he was not compelled to pay something that was illegal.

LORD WELBY

said that, in his opinion, Lord Balfour had gone very far in proving his case. He hoped, therefore, that unless the Government were prepared to reconsider the clause before the next stage of the Bill, his noble friend would press the Amendment.

LORD HERSCHELL

said that, though the Government were unable to accept the Amendment, they would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the Government had not challenged a division, but, at the same time, they had not accepted the Amendment. He hoped, if the Government could not accept his Amendment as it stood, they would make a real effort to devise a better clause than that at present in the Bill.

LORD HERSCHELL

assured the noble Lord that the whole matter would be considered by the Government before the Report stage.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

LORD HERSCHELL moved the insertion of a new subsection, the object of which was, he explained, to postpone the application of the new regulations as to the audit of accounts to the next financial year beginning on 15th May, 1909.

Amendment moved— In page 25, line 41, after the word 'duties' to insert the following new subsection:—(5) Nothing in this section contained shall affect the accounts of a school board or other managers for the year ending the fifteenth of May, in the year nineteen hundred and nine, or the audit of such accounts, and such accounts shall be kept, audited and otherwise dealt with as if this Act had not passed.'"—(Lord Herschell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved to leave out the first subsection setting forth that the "parish electors" should alone be eligible for the election of members of a school board. There were, he said, a large number of electors in the populous districts who had business premises not used as a dwelling house who had the right to vote. A change to the parish register would cause these electors to lose that right. If the franchise were changed, as proposed, it would eliminate one-third of the voters in Glasgow. He understood that there were 161,000 voters on the school board register, and only 106,000 on the parish register; therefore the change would deprive some 55,000 persons of their right to vote at the school board elections. He spoke on behalf of his co-religionists in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, where many Roman Catholics were already handicapped in education matters.

Amendment moved— In page 26, line 36, to page 27, line 4, to leave out subsection (1)."—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said it was perfectly true that in populous districts there was a discrepancy between the school board roll and the parish register, but the discrepancy was more apparent than real. On the roll were entered the names of the same persons very often three and four times, which accounted for a large portion of the discrepancy to which the noble Duke had referred. The school board roll was simply a copy of the valuation roll, leaving out properties under the value of £4 annually. That was the reason why the same names appeared frequently on the roll. There was another slight difference. It appeared to be a practice for the compilers of the school board roll to enter automatically the names of joint owners and occupiers whenever the valuation of the combined holding amounted to more than £4 a head; but, in the case of the parish council register, joint owners and occupiers were not so entered. There was, in fact, very little real discrepancy.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK

asked whether it was not the fact that in the case of the parish register the name had to be on the register for a certain period before the person was entitled to vote.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

agreed that there was a certain measure of disfranchisement by the change in the Bill. The parish voters' roll was a residential roll, and the proprietor of a shop, for instance, in Glasgow who resided out of Glasgow, would not be able to vote at the election in Glasgow. Presumably the shopkeeper kept his children where he resided, and not at the shop. Therefore it was reasonable that he should have the education vote in the district where he resided. The Bill, however, carried out a great measure of enfranchisement in the country districts, especially in the Highlands and in the crofting districts. He knew of one case where the landlord, the factor, the clergymen of different denominations, and the schoolmaster himself were the only voters for the school board. It was clear that the great majority of the crofter population ought to have votes, and the subsection as it stood would be an enfranchising clause for the rural districts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said the next Amendment standing in his name, raised one of the largest issues it was possible to imagine in a Bill of that kind. The cumulative vote, which was the present system, had by universal consent been largely discredited, and since the Second Reading of the Bill, he had received a considerable number of communications urging that that system should be got rid of. The Government had intended to abolish the cumulative vote, because in the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons, they proposed that the voting should be according to the system of each voter having one vote for as many vacancies as there were to be filled. That system, however, might have resulted in the whole of the Board being of one colour. A considerable amount of dissatisfaction arose in consequence, and various suggestions were made. The system that he now recommended was put down, but unfortunately there was no time for its discussion in the other House. He believed the system he was recommending to the House would give minorities not merely as good, but a better chance of being represented, than the cumulative vote. This system—it had been so fully explained, and was so well-known to their Lordships, that he would not go into it at length—had been tried over and over again, and their Lordships had seen a good illustration of how it was worked in the newspapers of Monday last. Under it, elected bodies would be more or less an exact reflex of the opinion of the constituencies, and it was bound to make its way in the future by its own merits. He was so anxious that it should be tried that he was willing that the school boards of Scotland should be the corpus vile for the experiment. Even at this late period of the Session he hoped that an opportunity would be given for a free, frank, and unprejudiced discussion of the subject in another place.

Amendment moved— In page 27, line 8, after the word 'therein, to insert the following new subsection: (3) At every election for a school board, every voter may give his vote for one candidate only, but he may also indicate by the figures two, three, and so on, his second and further preferences among the candidates. If without taking account of the second or other preference the number of votes given to any candidate amounts to or exceeds a number (hereinafter called "the quota") ascertained by dividing the total number of votes given to all the candidates by a number one more than the number of seats to be filled, that candidate shall be declared elected. If he has more than the quota, a number of votes equal to his surplus shall be distributed among the other candidates not already elected in proportion to the next preferences indicated by the voters who voted for him, and any candidate obtaining the quota or more by adding to his original votes the votes obtained by him on such distribution shall be declared elected. When, in this way, no candidate has any surplus, the candidate having fewest votes shall be struck out, and the votes cast for him shall be distributed in the same way, and so on until all the candidates in excess of the number of seats to be filled shall have been struck out. The remaining candidates shall then be declared elected. The foregoing provisions shall be carried into effect by returning officers in such manner and under such regulations as to recounting votes and otherwise as may be prescribed by the Scottish Education Department.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY had no doubt that the scheme would be more effective than the cumulative vote, and asked that the experiment might be tried. He reminded the House that their Lordships had sent down to the House of Commons last year a Bill providing that municipalities, where they were desirous of doing so, should be empowered to adopt the single transferable voting system, and that the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Cross in 1886–7, while not agreed upon the policy whether there should be a scheme for special representation of minorities, resolved that, if such a scheme were to be approved, the best way of achieving this was by the single transferable vote. No doubt the cumulative vote had worked better in Scotland than in England; but in England it had proved, perhaps, the most clumsy way of securing the representation of the minority. It was wasteful of votes for the majority, it embarrassed people as to how many candidates to run, and it led to the most elaborate wirepulling. He was quite sure that it would be a good thing to take this opportunity of trying the experiment of the system of proportional representation.

LORD AVEBURY

, in supporting the Amendment, took exception to Lord Stanley's describing the system proposed as an experiment. He thought it, had passed far beyond the stage in which it could fairly be called an experiment. It had been adopted by the Northumberland miners in all their trade union elections for a number of years, and had worked well. The system proposed in the Amendment was working with success in Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, and various other countries, and he had not the slightest doubt that it would work equally well in this country.

LORD HERSCHELL

, while admitting that on the merits of the Amendment there was a great deal to be said, pointed out that the matter had not been thrashed out, and the adoption of the method in this Bill might prejudice the inquiry which the Prime Minister had promised into the whole question. Moreover, there had been no conclusive experiments which demonstrated the superiority of the system of proportional representation as compared with the cumulative vote. In a word, the position of the Government was this, that while, the cumulative vote had been shown to have many weaknesses in working, and while they would be very willing to discard it in favour of a more equitable system if it were shown, after careful and impartial examination, that a more equitable system was available, they had come to the conclusion that until that could be shown they would not be justified in discarding that protection for minorities which the cumulative vote, with all its faults, did secure.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

said the noble Lord who had spoken on behalf of the Government had pleaded in extenuation of his not accepting the Amendment two things—first, that this I question had not been sufficiently considered, and, secondly, that the Prime Minister had promised an inquiry which might be prejudiced by the adoption of the Amendment. As to the first point, by adopting the Amendment their Lordships would give the other House an opportunity of considering the subject. The original proposal of the Government had been rejected in Standing Committee in the other House; but, owing to lack of time, the substitution of the single transferable vote could not be considered, and the Secretary for Scotland had no alternative but to leave the cumulative vote as it stood. The question was ripe for consideration on the part of the other House, and there was no risk of the Bill being imperilled if the Government maintained an open mind on the subject and allowed it to be considered. He was convinced that if they did, the system proposed in Lord Balfour's Amendment would be adopted. As to the other reason for not accepting the Amendment, no one felt more grateful to the Prime Minister than he did for consenting to institute an inquiry into the matter; but there was this distinction between that inquiry and the present proposal—the inquiry would have reference to the representation of the people in Parliament and the manner in which Members of the House of Commons should be elected, whereas the elections dealt with in the Bill were of an entirely different character. If it were a question of the election of a confederation of school boards in Scotland it might be pleaded that the inquiry was on all fours with the present proposal. The system of the cumulative vote had been discredited throughout Scotland, whilst that of proportional representation would secure, with greater certainty and more precision, the benefits indirectly secured by the cumulative vote. All he asked was that the other House should be given an opportunity of considering the subject.

* LORD REAY

urged that the Amendment should be withdrawn. He admitted that the arguments in favour of it were weighty, but questioned whether the present was an opportune time for the introduction of a new system of voting and of this particular method of giving effect to it. In the Report just issued dealing with the constitution of their Lordships' House, proportional representation was not proposed by the very influential Committee which submitted that Report; after careful inquiry, the Committee adopted the cumulative vote. That seemed to him a very strong argument for not interfering at present with the existing state of things in Scotland.

* THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, my noble friend behind me put his case, as he always does, very clearly and fairly, and I think it is important to remind the House that the question under discussion is not the merits of the single transferable vote, but whether that particular method of voting should be applied in this particular Bill. That is really the only question we have to discuss. We are all, I think, interested in the manner in which my noble friend's supporters have increased within the last few years. There was a time when proportional representation was not regarded with very great general sympathy, but of late the question has become much more before the public, and I think the point of view of my noble friend has been adopted by many more people than held it formerly. We were all of us interested in the account of the election which took place the other day. I had the pleasure myself of voting for various gentlemen, including the Prime Minister and a distinguished brother of the noble Marquess opposite, and I distributed a large number of papers in my own department. But, as regards the inclusion of the plan in this particular Bill, my noble friend has pointed out very fairly that a serious question arises with regard to the inquiry of which the Prime Minister gave notice in reply to a deputation. That inquiry, I have every reason to believe, will be a very thorough one, carried on by people of general eminence and in some cases of particular experience in the matter. It is impossible to say what conclusion they will reach, and it does seem to me that it would be curious and anomalous for the Government, while this matter is under consideration, to adopt in a Bill of their own one particular method put forward. I think my noble friend has put it somewhat high. Objections have boon taken even to the single transferable vote and to the method of its working in other parts of the world. Therefore it would be premature to say that that plan, in the form in which he proposes it, is the one which is certain to be recommended. It seems to me it would be difficult for us to insert it in this Bill without appearing to recommend it beforehand. My noble friend drew an extremely ingenious distinction between the election of a school board and a Parliamentary election. Is there anything very real in that distinction? The school board is as much a body of persons brought together to carry out a particular object as Parliament is itself. The difference is merely one of scale, and I confess I was not impressed by my noble friend's argument that if it was a question of what all the school boards in Scotland were to do when massed together the case would be different. It does seem to mo that a school board is an assembly, although a very small one, in the same sense that Parliament is an assembly. I can quite understand my noble friend desire to have a general discussion in another place on the single transferable vote. That, I think, is his object in desiring that this Amendment should be carried. Whether another place has at this moment, in the present state of public business, the same desire, I confess I have some doubt; and, under these circumstances, I do not feel that, it would give the Bill a better chance of becoming law if it were sent down to another place with this Amendment inserted. On that ground I would appeal to my noble friend opposite not to press his Amendment.

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I think it must be satisfactory to my noble friend to find that the objection to his proposal is based almost entirely, not upon its merits, but upon its opportuneness at the present moment. So far as the question of merit goes, very little has been said to impugn it. The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill, and who has handled it with great dexterity, admitted frankly that the cumulative vote did not work satisfactorily in Scotland, and that there was a good deal to be said for the alternative procedure advocated by my noble friend. The only solid objection to his proposal is that the Prime Minister has undertaken that there shall be an investigation into the whole of this question, and that the adoption of this plan of proportional voting in the Bill now before us might embarrass the Prime Minister in reference to that investigation. I confess I am not quite able to see why that should be the case. My noble friend, who speaks with great authority on all Scottish questions, was ready to hand over his country—it was his expression and not mine—as the corpus vile upon which this experiment might be tired, and I should have thought the experiment would have been an extremely instructive and useful one. I think my noble friend will have to consider whether, after what has been said on behalf of His Majesty's Government, it is worth his while to press the Amendment to a division. The Amendment no doubt brings with it a very serious innovation, and I think it is doubtful, whether in a not very well filled House, in the teeth of strong opposition from His Majesty's Government, and at a period of the session when it is surely not very desirable that new points of controversy should be raised, he would do well to insist upon adding to this Bill the clause standing in his name. For this reason I would respectfully suggest to him that it might be better to defer to the strong pressure which has been put upon him by noble Lords opposite, and not ask the House to divide.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

confessed to feeling himself in a difficult position. If this question was ever to be advanced it would have to be by practical experiment. It was all very well to praise the system in theory, but if never seriously put into operation it would never be advanced in public favour. The appeals made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition were appeals which had great force. Personally, he would be inclined to ask permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment, but, if other noble Lords insisted on dividing, he would, of course, feel bound to vote with them. Would it not be possible for the Government, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, to insert a provision empowering parishes to petition the Scottish Education Department to be allowed to vote in this particular way? The objection to the cumulative vote was stronger in some parishes than in others, aud it might not be uninteresting if in individual cases this particular form of election could be tried.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said the appeal which the noble Lord had made should receive the attention of His Majesty's Government. But bearing in mind the stage of the session at which they had arrived, he could not hold out any great hope that it would be possible for the Government to meet the noble Lord on this point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved to amend subsection (3) of Clause 27, by inserting the words "or on the petition of not less than ten ratepayers." The subsection would then read— On the application of a school board, or on the petition of not less than ten ratepayers, the Department may, for the purposes of the school board election, if they think fit, divide the school board district into two or more electoral divisions, may define the boundaries of such divisions, and may fix the number of members of the school board to be elected within each division.

Amendment moved— In page 27, line 9, after the word 'board' to insert the words' or on the petition of not less than ten ratepayers.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD HERSCHELL

accepted the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORFOLK moved the deletion of subsection (3) which the Committee had just amended. If the school board districts were broken up into small electoral divisions the advantages given to minorities by the cumulative vote completely vanished. He therefore hoped the Government would be able to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 27, lines 9 to 14, to leave out subsection (3)."—(The Duke of Norfolk.)

LORD HERSCHELL

said the subsection was inserted in the earlier draft of the Bill when it was proposed to abolish the cumulative vote. There was not quite the same necessity for it now; but, even with the cumulative vote, occasion might arise when it would be found convenient to subdivide some unwieldy constituency. The power which the subsection gave to the Department would certainly not be exercised unless there was general agreement in the locality as to its desirability.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

, in withdrawing, owing to the lateness of the hour and the sparse attendance, an Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, expressed the hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House would turn his attention to this clause, with a view of seeing the really drastic changes it proposed in regard to trusts. The trusts dealt with under the clause were examined into twenty-five years ago by a Commission of which he was Chairman. They were then largely reformed, the governing bodies in every case liberalised, and representatives of public authorities placed upon them. It was now proposed to give a chance majority on any governing body the right to hand over the endowment to the district committee. He did not think it would injure the Bill as a whole if the clause were omitted altogether. It would, however, to a certain extent avoid symmetry of administration, and he had therefore hesitated to go so far as to move its omission. But unless something were done to remove its drastic nature, he would be strongly tempted to move the deletion of the clause at the next stage

Clause 30 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 242.)