in the Chair.

said he entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the question of physical training was second only, if it were second in some cases, to the question of intellectual training. We were rather inclined, by long and not very wise tradition, to confine the word "education" within too narrow limits, and to suppose that it only affected the moral and intellectual side of life, and of that side certain relatively narrow intellectual interests. Therefore, he did not quarrel with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. The hon. Gentleman wished that, in addition to the ordinary scholastic training, there should be some attention given to the physical training of the scholars. But would that object, excellent though it were, be properly carried out by the Amendment? Was there a distinction between "secular," which was in the Clause, and "physical," which the hon. Gentleman proposed to add? "Secular," in common parlance, and certainly as used in the Bill, was opposed not to physical, but to religious education. If the hon. Gentleman were right—as he believed he was—in thinking that physical training ought in many cases to be made an essential part of the general training, unconnected with the religion of the pupils, it would come under the general term "secular." If they added "physical," why not add each of the different items which went to make up the secular side of education— such as Latin, for example? It was impossible to include in the Clause all the items which went to make up secular education, and he held, therefore, that the general word "secular" was sufficient. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be content, in the circumstances, with having called attention to this important element of general education, without pressing his Amendment to a division.

said that after the sympathetic speech of the Prime Minister there was no course open to him but to withdraw his Amendment. He highly valued the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that this portion of education in public elementary schools was both essential and valuable, and he only hoped the Government would formulate a scheme making physical education compulsory in the elementary schools. He believed hon. Members generally were in entire sympathy with that view.

ruled out of order the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, which was, after the word "secular" to insert the words "and undenominational."

said they were all agreed that the education authority should have control over all secular teaching, whether in denominational or other schools, and that the control of religious teaching should be left to denominational authorities. The third point was as to the control of religious teaching in undenominational schools, and he maintained that the Clause as it stood made no provision for that. It merely provided that the local education authority should, throughout its area, have the powers and duties exercised by School Attendance Committees under the Acts of 1870 and 1900. That, if it stood by itself, would meet the difficulty, no doubt; but words had been added making it responsible for "secular '' instruction in public elementary schools, whether provided by it or not. That created some doubt as to who was to be responsible for religious education in schools not provided by the authority.

The hon. Member evidently wishes to amend the words "whether provided by them or not." The question of undenominational religious teaching has already been decided.

said that he would raise the points embodied in the Amendments standing next in his name on a subsequent part of the Clause.

moved an Amendment the object of which was, he said, to make it clear that the local education authority should have control of all secular instruction, whether in voluntary or denominational schools.

said the question involved was one of drafting or construction, rather than of principle. They were all agreed that the local education authority should have absolute control over secular and religious training in the schools they themselves provided, and that they should have absolute control over secular training in the voluntary schools. The only question was as to how the matter could be most clearly put. Personally, he would have thought the meaning was obviously clear, but as he gathered from the debate the other night that there was some difference of opinion, and as the Amendment would make it clearer, he had no objection to accepting it.

moved to omit, the last words of the Clause, which provided that School Boards and School Attendance Committees should be abolished. He did not think that they ought to decide absolutely on the abolition of School Boards. Practically, of course, they had been abolished, so far as their control over education was concerned, but no final decision should be come to until they came to the Clause which would enable them to be retained purely as committees of management. His contention was that, although the County Council might be able to direct and control education generally within its area, to decide on the amount of money to be expended on education, to give general directions for education, and organise it in a general way, it was quite impossible for a body of that kind actually to manage individual schools. It was admitted that the Clause gave power to County Councils to inspect schools, but there was a great difference between that and managing them. In a county with a population of 200,000 or 300,000, and a very large area, the County Council could not do more than provide a general education scheme, and it would find great difficulty in appointing committees of management, for it would not possess the necessary local knowledge to enable it to select the best men to manage the schools. All that he asked the First Lord of the Treasury to do was to refrain from prejudicing the question whether School Boards should not be retained in some districts purely for the purposes of management. The omission of these words would give the Committee an opportunity, when they came to the next Clause, dealing with the management of schools, to discuss the propriety of retaining School Boards as the managers of schools.

said he thought that the object the hon. Gentleman had in view was an important object, and one the Committee might well discuss. If he understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he only desired to deal with the: counties, and in the counties the hon. Gentleman desired to keep the School Boards in existence, while depriving them of any rights under the Act of 1870—to leave them as pale and ineffectual ghosts, endowed with a kind of transitory life by the County Council, if it should so please. The first observation he would make was that the hon. Gentleman pro-posed to create, or rather to leave in I existence, a very cumbrous machinery to carry out a very small object. Even those who favoured the School Board system thought that the whole apparatus of the cumulative vote, and the rest of it, threw a great deal of cost and trouble on small districts. The cost of a contested election in these small areas bore a most absurd and abnormal proportion to the total expenditure of the School Board, and he did think it would be very inadvisable to make it a part of the new machinery. He would also point out that even now the public interest in School Board elections was not very great as compared with that taken in other elections. What would it be when those bodies were deprived of all autonomy and dignity, and left as the mere servants of the County Council? Though he did not think the Committee ought to accept the Amendment, he agreed that it was worth considering in the next clause whether something could not be devised which would put the locality in some touch with the central authority. They had already decided, by the earlier words of the Clause, to make the County Council wholly responsible for educational matters, and he thought that to have another elective body in the district, even though it would be subordinate to the County Council, would be to invite some kind of collision between the two bodies.

was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's last words, which contained a promise of better things to come; but he would have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have indicated a little more distinctly what he intended to do, because it would have largely saved their labourson the Bill, Heneed not answer the other arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, which, though they might have some force, had not the force of the last argument of the right hon. Gentleman. They attached to this element of local popular control a great deal of importance, and any proposal of that kind would be of the greatest value.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had given a negative indication as to his intention, which was somewhat unfortunate.

dissented.

said that was certainly what he understood. He would quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman—

"An elective body might come into conflict with the County Council."

said of course if those words were used they were quite open to his right hon. friend's criticism. He understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was only directed against School Boards.

explained that what he was objecting to was the continuation in the area of a body wholly elective, with a great tradition behind it, going back to 1870, and having had powers of which they were now deprived, but which they would have a natural instinct to resume. He had pointed out that there might be friction between the elective body and the body they all desired to see supreme in relation to education, namely, the County Council. He did not wish to give any special pledge, but what was passing through his mind was that, in addition to the managers nominated by the County Council, there should be a certain proportion elected by the Parish Councils.

expressed his satisfaction at having elicited that expression of opinion, which was a great improvement on what the right hon. Gentleman had first said. It was a considerable concession, especially if the proportion of the elected element was a large one. He thought the whole ought to be elected, but the matter would have an important bearing on the Clause. The view that the right hon. Gentleman took in his first speech, that there might be conflict of authority, was not borne out by their experience of the County Councils, Parish Councils, and District Councils, all of which dealt with the same class of duties. The line between them had been strictly maintained, and they had all done good work for the counties. What they had in view was the importance of keeping as managers of the schools in the School Board districts the men who had learnt their work and had done it in the past, and who had the confidence of the ratepayers. The position offered to them under this Bill was the management of one school, when, under the School Board, they had controlled twenty or thirty; and it was not reasonable to suppose that they would accept such a position. What they desired was to see a larger scope of duty given to these men under this Bill.

said he heard what fell from the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pleasure, because he thought the concession would be most valuable, not only from the point of view of persons immediately concerned, but also from another point of view altogether. The bringing of the Parish Councils into line was a great concession, because in many cases Parish Councils were almost dying of inanition for want of. work to do. Frequently the same persons who served on the Parish Councils, also served on the School Board, and the result was that the two elections injured the value of both in the eyes of the electors. He hoped the Government would consider whether, where the area was of sufficient size, and the School Board was not working well, the Parish Councils could not be substituted for it.

thought the noble Lord who had just spoken had given good reason why the School Boards should not be retained. This Amendment, which had been supported by such high authority, would, if accepted, keep in existence an expensive body, for no object which could not be obtained by other means. He ventured to think, however much regard they might have for the work the School Boards had done in the past, it would be very unwise, now that the Committee had determined to abolish them, to press an Amendment for the purpose of keeping them in existence for such a purpose as this. Did any hon. Member think it would be desirable to keep the Attendance Committee in existence merely for the purpose of managing a school? He welcomed the suggestion made by the First Lord, and thought the Committee could not possibly come to a decision which-would keep on the expensive machinery of the School Board for Such an inadequate purpose.

was of opinion that the question for the Committee to consider was whether the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. He thought the advantages of retaining the School Boards as managers of the schools were so plain as to admit of no doubt as to the desirability of their being retained. He traversed the suggestion that there was no interest taken in the election of the School Boards. In the counties he was acquainted with, great interest was taken in the elections, and that was only natural, because the persons who sent their children to the schools were interested in seeing them properly managed. The Welsh system afforded a clear example of subordinate bodies working in complete harmony with the higher bodies. Every intermediate school in Wales was managed on the spot by a local committee, which was subordinate, in all important matters, to the county governing body, but, so far as he knew, there were no cases in which friction had arisen between the two. The county governing bodies dictated the educational policy, but the whole of the details of the actual working were, and must necessarily be, left to the people on the spot. Undoubtedly the School Attendance Committees would have to be got rid of, but that was a comparatively small matter, and he should support the Amendment.

understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to part with the School Boards and the School Attendance Committees until they knew what were to take their place. That matter was dealt with in the next Clause, and he understood that the First Lord was prepared to consider Amendments extending or modifying that Clause, which, as it stood, was undoubtedly somewhat sketchy. There was a three-fold object in constituting these subordinate bodies: first, to relieve the local authority of the burden of detail in the management of the schools; secondly, to enlist local interest by imparting some measure of local representation to these Committees; and thirdly, to utilize as far as possible the accumulated experience of School Boards. The discussion on those points ought really to come on Clause 7, and he suggested that instead of discussing mere hypotheses on the present Clause as to the intentions of the Government they should finish with Clause 6, and proceed with the Clause which really dealt with these matters

said the right hon. Gentleman opposite was correct in his main argument, but before the committee proceeded further they ought to know what was to be the precise effect of the abolition of School Boards. He did not wish to go into details with regard to the Welsh system; but nobody had pointed out how serious was the disorganization which was about to take place in consequence of the disorganization which was the about to take place in consequence of the passing of this Bill. They had, first of all, the University of Wales, governed in the last resort by the University court, which was partly a nominated and partly a representative body. The had besides three national colleges and also a number of secondary schools established under the intermediate Act of 1889, besides the ordinary public elementary schools under the Act of 1870 and the amending Acts. He desired to ask the prime Minister whether he had considered the charter of the three national colleges and the effect of the adoption of Clause 6 in relation thereto. They were State-aided colleges, but they has also attracted a large amount of private attracted a large amount of private subscriptions. In the case of the University College, at Aberystwith, the governing body was somewhat numerous, but it included among the elected Governors nominees of the School Boards of seven counties in Wales—28 in number. What was going to be done, supposing Clause 6 passed, in regard to the Charter of the University College? With regard to Bangor College, the Chairmen of the School Boards in North Wales were ex officio members of the College Committee, while in regard to the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, no fewer than 48 members of the Court of Governors were elected by the School Boards. It was obvious that the effect of the abolition of the School Boards would be to disorganise the work of these institutions. The object they had in forming those charters, and in anxiously discussing the constitution of those governing bodies, was to secure that very co-ordination which everybody regarded as desirable. If this Clause as it stood were carried they would have in some way to alter the Charters of those colleges, and the Committee had a right to know the intentions of the Government in the matter. With regard to most of the secondary schemes the same principle had been carried out. They had endeavoured to obtain consideration, not on the principle of one authority, but rather by securing a thoroughly representative element on every body that governed education in Wales. Having regard to the large area involved, viz., thirteen counties, he thought he was right to call the attention of the Government to the disorganisation that would take place if the Clause passed without this further Amendment.

said he hoped the Amendment would not be passed, because the Committee had already practically abolished the School Board, and to keep the School Board alive in its decimated state would not only detract from its dignity, but also make it almost impossible to get men to serve on the School Boards. He thought the purpose of his hon. friends was to provide, as far as possible, for the elective principle being applied to the local management of education. With that, of course, he had the utmost sympathy, and he trusted the proposals which the Government had in view would be sufficient to carry that out with thoroughness. The great necessity for that was, not only with the object of interesting the parents and those who had the control of children in the education of the district, but also in the very largo counties and areas in particular where it was physically impossible for the local education authority as at present constituted under this Bill, to carry out its work. In the West Riding of Yorkshire by the Bill they had already wiped out no less than 140 School Boards and the work of those bodies would have to be undertaken by the West Riding County Council. That was a large undertaking, and it would have to be divided between the local education authority and the managing committees; but it had been discovered by those interested in the management of education in the West Riding that it would be almost impossible for the local representatives to come from the north-west corner of the county to attend to the management work in the county town of Wakefield, unless they were prepared to give up for every meeting held in Wakefield the night previous and the night following the day on which the meeting was held. That was a small matter to those who had the time to spare, but he and others wished to attract not only the men who had the time to spare, but also men who were busy men, with the interests of education at heart. He believed the interests of his hon. friends would be best served by having the Parish Council represented on the local Committee, and he hoped the Government would see its way to carry that out in the next Clause.

said that as this Clause marked the final abolition of School Boards, Liberals at any rate were entitled to enter a last protest. He did not, however, altogether appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Swansea, because the Clause provided for the powers of the School Board being transferred to the local education authority, and therefore the latter body would in future elect representatives to the governing bodies as the School Boards had hitherto done, When they got to Clause 7 it would be I very easy to delete those words. He thought that if they allowed this proposal to pass now their hands would be tied. He agreed with what the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said about the difficulties experienced in counties. He knew one county where it would be impossible to appoint managers with any knowledge and capacity for the work, and he thought they ought to have a School Board there.

said that after the defeat of his Amendment about School Boards he thought they had finished with them altogether, and he accepted his defeat in good part, But if he understood the Prime Minister rightly he now proposed to leave it to the Committee, and therefore his hon. friend might have withdrawn his Amendment in favour of a scheme with an ad hoc authority to replace the School Board in so far as exercising the delegated powers of the local education authority in connection with the education given in the schools was concerned. The Member for Oxford University rather confused the minor questions in Clause 7 with the larger questions involved in Clause 6.

I intervened to-day because I am extremely anxious that no interpretation should be put upon my words which might cause subsequent disappointment. May I just explain again the idea which I previously sketched. My hon. friend who has just sat down seems to think the body I have in view under Clause 7 is the body to whom necessarily should be delegated the powers of the County Council. That is not so. The education authority must remain the education authority for the district. Of course it will have power, if it chooses to exercise that power, to give to managers duties, in fact to delegate all its duties to them. It can do that. I am considering only the question of managers, and I confess I do not contemplate, for reasons which I am quite ready to develop later, that in any of the schools the locally elected representatives should be in a majority. I think there are strong reasons why they should not be. The idea I had in my mind did not go that length at all. What I did have in my mind was that there should be a representation on the Board of Management, which was due to local election probably by the Parish Council, and upon which I think means could be devised by which parents should have a place. I do not wish to put it at all higher than that. It was a minority which I contemplated being elected. Hon. Members must not carry away the idea that I mean a majority of locally elected representatives. I want to make that point quite clear.

said he agreed that village schools not only wanted more money, but also bettor management, and that would come by the people being kept in touch with the school. Everything would depend upon the proportion of representation given. He gathered that they were not likely to get half the number locally elected. School Boards were abolished in Clause 1 and Clause 5, and in the early part of this Clause, and now they were proposing to abolish them once more. Did the Committee think it was worth while in the small villages to go through ail the machinery of a contested election for the purpose of electing a body to manage twenty-five children? He did not think the ratepayers of that village would thank the hon. Member for Carnarvon for such a proposal. At the present time they had got at least 2,000 schools with less than thirty children, and were they to have a triennial election in a poverty-stricken area simply for the management of one school with twenty-five children? That was what would happen if these words were continued. There were no schools worse conducted in England and Wales than the small village schools, where the attendance was atrociously bad, and so was the equipment. The case could be well met by nomination. At present they had an ad hoc body for London and 2,000 school managers, not one of whom was directly elected, and they conducted their business under a Code submitted by the School Board with admirable efficiency. He was opposed to retaining microscopic ad hoc bodies for the purposes of school management because it would inflict unnecessary expense, while they could get at the same result by other means.

said that if this Clause passed the system of secondary education would be seriously interfered with. In Devonshire, for instance, they had twenty-six or thirty members, on the local governing body appointed directly by the School Boards in the county, He did not know how it was proposed, in the event of this Clause passing, to remodel the whole system in Wale.;. He supported this Amendment on general grounds, and he took it to be part of the scheme of this Bill that the County Council was not directly managing any of these schools. If that was so, the Bill contemplated the delegation of powers to some properly elected body. It was said that the School Boards in the country districts were far too small for efficient management. That might be so, but surely the same argument would apply to the delegation of powers by the local education authority to the Parish Council, which would certainly not be larger than the School Board. If this Clause were allowed to stand, subject to the Amendment, he failed to see how the general scheme would be affected thereby. It was suggested that they were perpetuating a body which would be cumbrous and expensive to the electors, but there was no reason why the general scheme should be affected by the proposal.

said he had a right to complain that the hon. Member for Camberwell had not taken the trouble to understand the Amendment. The hon. Member said the Amendment was a proposal to set up a School Board for every district, although the district might only have twenty-five inhabitants. If he had proposed an Amendment of that sort it would have been perfectly right to amend it. That was not the Amendment he proposed. The only Amendment he proposed at present was one which would not prejudice the question as to whether under certain circumstances School Boards should be retained as Committees of Management. His hon. friend chose to make an attack upon Welsh School Boards. He had more experience of Wales than the hon. Member, and had therefore more right to speak of Welsh educational matters. The hon. Member had attacked the, little School Hoards in Wales. It was true that some of them were not efficient, but did his hon. friend mean to say that the managers of voluntary schools in those districts did their work better than the little School Boards? His experience was that the board schools in the rural districts were healthier, cleaner and better equipped than the voluntary schools, and it would interest his hon. friend to know that they paid the teachers better. If an attack was to be made on the little School Boards, why should the voluntary school managers always escape? He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not make up his mind definitely at this point that the majority of the members of the Committee of Management must be appointed by the education authority, he thought it was much more important that the majority should be selected by some body—it might be the Parish Council —who knew the best men in the district. If the County Council had to select the managers in any district, not knowing the men, they must leave it entirely to the caprice or personal prejudice of one man who knew the district. He did not think that was desirable.

said he should have preferred to say what he had to say in moving the rejection of the Clause, but the discussion had taken an interesting turn, and the scope of the Amendment had been largely misinterpreted, and he should like to offer one or two words now. His intention in putting the Amendment on the Paper was purely negative. He simply wished to preserve at this stage freedom of judgment to the House as to the ultimate form of local authority which should be subordinated to the central authority. It seemed to him that the words "and School Boards and School Attendance Committees shall be abolished in that area," were unnecessary, and that the Clause might very well terminate with the words "whether provided by them or not." He protested against the abolition of the School Boards, believing that it was a serious blunder to destroy, instead of develop, ad hoc authorities for education. But they were placed in the position of doing the best they could with the Bill. It was essential that there should be some form of local autonomy. He had heard with some satisfaction what had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury as to the management of schools. He would remind the Committee that an enormous and important alteration had been made in Clause 3' by the acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member for East Somersetshire. By that concession the local authorities of a multitude of small areas had been given almost complete autonomy as regards the provision of education other than elementary. He himself regarded that concession as imperfect and unsatisfactory in some ways, and thought some form of co-ordination should be provided, although he voted for it on the ground of endeavouring to obtain so far as he could an equivalent for the local autonomy given in the School Board. The Bill was a bad Bill, but its only merit was the principle, or rather the profession, that it would co-ordinate all authorities and all schools under a central authority. But he held that what was done in regard to secondary education logically carried with it as a corollary the concession of some form of local autonomy with regard to elementary education also under this Bill. If they could get that in the form of an ad hoc authority it would be advisable.

said he desired to support the Amendment because, as he understood it, it left the question of the constitution of the body which would manage the schools to the final decision of Clause 7. The hon. Member for Oxford University asked that they should get on to Clause 7 and then discuss the question. He should be very glad to follow that advice, if the First Lord first adopted this Amendment. He could not agree with the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell upon the small Welsh School Boards, and the scorn which he poured upon them and all their works. It was possible that some small School Boards had done bad work, but the hon. Member was not right in locating them in Wales. He could only say that the school of the small School Boards in Wales had earned a bettor grant than the voluntary schools. In his own county the voluntary schools only earned £1 4s. 7d. per child, while the School Board schools so much derided by the hon. Member for Camber-: well had earned £1 7s. 8d. per child.

said that this was the last opportunity the House of Commons would have of making an effective protest against the abolition of the School Boards, and it was right that on an occasion of that kind hon. Members, whether they had the misfortune to be Members for Wales or for England, should have the right to press their opinions. He thought before this Act was consummated they should express their gratitude to the men who during the past thirty years had rendered such self-sacrificing services to education. They; had done splendid work, which could never be obliterated or forgotten in the future. When the country was informed that it was the intention of the Government to obliterate the School Boards there was a considerable outcry against it, but they were assured that the Members of the School Boards would be continued on the School Management Committees as delegates of the local education authority. Of course that might be done for the next year or two, but they were not legislating for the next year or two, but for a very considerable period, and I having regard to that, he thought it i was only right, as his hon. friend proposed, that they should make some I permanent arrangement for the local management of the schools, hitherto under the management of the School Boards. Unless that were done the management of those schools, he feared, would be hereafter of a thoroughly unrepresentative character. Even if a certain number of representative persons were placed on the Committees, the result would be that there would be a great diminution in that direct interest taken by the members, who heretofore had felt a direct responsibility to the people in regard to the schools which they had managed. They had attained, as he understood, the object with which the Government set out—viz., to prevent overlapping; but if the machinery of the School Boards was preserved they should still be able to prevent anything in the shape of overlapping. The First Lord had expressed some apprehension as to the conflict which might arise between the members of the School Boards and the managers of the local education authority, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as the experience of Welsh intermediate education was concerned, there was no such friction. The two bodies worked together in perfect harmony. Although innumerable questions constantly arose, these were settled without the slightest friction. Some hon. Gentlemen objected on the score of the expense that the elections would cause; but it was idle to suppose that by any change of authorities additional economy would be attained in the working of the schools. Every change of this kind resulted, on the other hand, in a considerable increase of expense. At the same time he entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for North Camber-well and the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said in regard to the desirability of retaining the machinery of small School Boards; but what were the Government going to do in the case of towns like Leeds with a population of 340,000, the School Board of which employed 2,000 teachers, and the value of whose school buildings was £2,000,000 sterling. It would be absolutely impossible for the local education authority to have that effective control which was necessary over these schools. The result would be that the control of the schools would fall into the hands of the officials. There were limits to human endurance and capacity, and the cashiering of large numbers of men who had given free service to the cause of education—-work which had been stimulated by the countenance of the people, would have the worst possible effect on education. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, as this Amendment did not in any way prejudge the matter, to keep the matter open, so that when Clause 7 was reached they might be free to deal with the question of management. They did not ask for a moment that he should apply the same rule to all the School Boards, but they said that in regard to the large School Boards it would be the best educational policy not to make the change contemplated at present in the Bill. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had made an attack upon the small School Boards in Wales, on account of the small attendance in their schools; but the proportion of attendance in the School Board schools in Wales was higher than in School Board schools in England. It was quite true that the proportion of attendance with the number on the register was less, but that was a very different matter. These small School Boards no doubt had their defects, in common with the other Boards in the country, but these defects were not inherent in the Welsh School Boards. The National Labour Education League, which consisted of representatives of the Trades Unions of the country, and which was an entirely non-political organisation, had issued a manifesto in which it was stated that the wage-earners found it difficult to follow from the debates that there would be any direct representation of the people on the new education committees. Under the Bill, the manifesto went on to say, it would be possible for a Committee to be constituted of nominated persons, not one of whom would be directly elected by the people. As had already been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carnarvon the responsibility for the control of the Schools had, by the Bill, been removed as far as possible from the electorate.

said it was perfectly evident that this Clause had been framed on the assumption that Clause 5 would remain in the Bill as it had been originally drafted. There was a further point. Was it not the invariable practice in drafting that when a body was destroyed, it was necessary to; transfer not only the duties but the property, rights and liabilities of that body to the new body? It was very evident that in respect to Schedule 2, the Bill would have to be remodelled. He submitted that under the altered circumstances in which the Bill was now placed, it would be necessary to introduce a new Clause dealing with the transference of the rights, property, and liabilities of the School Boards. If that were so, was it not natural and logical that the words should be omitted?

said that Clause 19 would meet the hon. Gentleman's point. It provided that the provisions set out in the second schedule relating to the transfer of property and officers, and adjustment should have effect for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the Act into effect.

said he thought Clause 19 was framed in that way purposely, on the assumption that the first section of Schedule 2 remained unaltered, and that the option was retained in the Bill. There would be no object in putting in a provision as to the transference of the powers and rights of School Boards into the schedule, except to meet that particular case. That was why, from a drafting standpoint, he submitted that the Government might accept the Amendment.

said that some alteration in the second schedule would be necessary as a result of the changes which had been made, but the Clause

said it would be more in accordance with the usual practice if the words were omitted in the present Clause, and, if necessary, inserted in Clause 19.

said he did not think so.

said he regretted he could not agree with the Attorney General. He desired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the Standing Order against repetition.

said he had no intention of transgressing the Rule, and would conclude by associating himself with the remarks of his hon. friend.

said his desire was as far as possible to preserve the School Boards, provided that the local education authorities were of opinion that for the purposes of a managing body for the schools the School Board should exist through the whole area, or in some part of it. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper because he thought it was a pity that these authorities, which had done such good work in the past, should be abolished. The Amendment simply provided that the School Boards should continue to exist, as a managing body only, if the local education authorities came to the conclusion that, for this purpose, it was desirable that they should exist. The local education authorities would obviously have the fullest knowledge of educational affairs in their own particular districts, and to him it seemed it would be rather hard to say that those bodies should not have the power to declare that for this very limited purpose the School Board in their particular district should continue to exist. He quite agreed that all School Boards could not remain — that many of the smaller School Boards must go. He only suggested that where the local education authorities considered it desirable they should continue to manage the schools. Hon. Members did not appreciate the enormous duty the House was throwing on the local authorities. To place upon them the duty of managing the educational affairs of a large and populous county was to cast upon them an enormous task, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to consider how they could lessen, as far as possible, the duty they were casting upon them. It was for this reason that he had placed the Amendment on the Paper, and he hoped when the right hon. Gentleman came to reply he would see his way to accept it.

said he thought the hon. Member would see that whatever variation there might be between the Amendment now proposed and that which had just been discussed at such length, that variation did not touch the arguments which had been addressed to the former Amendment, and those arguments were equally valid against this.

desired merely to illustrate the value of this Amendment, which in his opinion ought to be accepted. In the county to which he belonged they had some very efficient School Boards, thoroughly capable of carrying out their work; and even in a small county of that kind the mass of work the management of the schools would entail on the local authorities was enormous. As a member of the local authority of that county, which would become the education authority under the Bill, he, stood aghast at the work they would have to accomplish. All that the Amendment suggested was that the local authority should have the option—nothing more. It would be an immense relief to the local authorities in many districts if they had the power to delegate such of their functions as they thought desirable to the School Board. It would be a matter of the greatest convenience to the largo School Boards, which of course would be in strict subordination to the local education authorities; and it seemed a little hard that the local education authorities should not have, in the case of the best and most efficient School Boards, the power of delegating to those School Boards the duties which they believed could be more efficiently exercised by them.

thought the Amendment was important in two respects. In the first place it would relieve the local education authority from a great amount of work which would come upon them suddenly, and in the second, it would ensure the continuation of those School Boards that ought to be preserved. That was really the test of the value of this Amendment, because nobody could doubt but that in a large number of cases the School Boards would be preserved. If all School Boards were abolished, the result would be that for a time, at any rate, education would be in a state of chaos, but if this Amendment were accepted, it would enable the local authorities to preserve the School Boards, and thus enable them to do the great work which would be thrust upon them by this Bill. The decision of the local authority in these matters was not final, so that, in the event of their deciding to preserve the School Board, it did not necessarily mean that the School Board was to exist for ever. The Amendment was a

thought the Amendment a very reasonable and moderate one, and if the suggestion of the previous speaker were adopted, and the proposal limited to a period of, say, three years, he failed to see what possible objection the Government could have to it.

looked upon the present Amendment as being entirely different from the last. Its importance, especially in county boroughs, was so great, that the Committee ought to be careful lest they came to a rash decision. The city of Newcastle afforded a good example of the benefits that would be given by this Amendment to large towns. Of late years in that city there had been an outburst of municipal energy, and the powers of the city Council were taxed to such an extent that it was almost impossible to get through the work. By this Amendment Newcastle would be given the option of preserving —at any rate for a few years —the school Board which had done such excellent work in that city, and they would be able to carry on the schools without disturbing the municipal life. Moreover, if the operation of the Amendment were limited to three years, certain complications which must be foreseen would be avoided.