said there was nothing in the Bill which transferred the right (enjoyed under trust deeds in some cases by the incumbent) to appoint the teacher to the managers. Ought not some such provision to be included in the Bill?

There is no Amendment on the Paper of that character.

said he would move to insert the words "by the managers" after "teachers." It was assumed by the Bill that the appointment was to be in the hands of the managers, but, as he had pointed out, there were cases in which the trust deeds gave the clergymen the power of appointment, and there was nothing in the Bill which would deprive him of it. The object of the Amendment was to make absolutely clear that the appointment of the teacher was in the hands of the managers.

hoped the First Lord would see the necessity for this Amendment. At present the appointment of the teachers was given inferentially and not definitely to the managers set up by the Bill. The First Lord had said that the managers created by the Bill would have all the powers that belonged to existing managers, but under some existing trust deeds the parson alone might have the appointment of the teachers. This was the most material point in the whole Bill; they ought to have some explanation from the Government as to how the appointment of the teacher was to be made, and what bodies were to be consulted in regard to it. Was the education authority, in point of fact, to have any real voice in the appointment of teachers?

said the right hon. Gentleman had asked several questions of which he was perfectly convinced he knew the answers. There had never been any doubt or secrecy on the part of the Government, as to what their policy was on this matter. The appointment of the teachers would lie with the managers, and with the managers as a whole, acting in their corporate capacity, and, therefore, there could be no difference of opinion between the Government and the mover of the Amendment on that point. But whether it was necessary to make the Clause clearer he was extremely doubtful, and he was of opinion that it would not be improved if the Government accepted the Amendment.

replied that general declarations of policy were not set out in the Bill. Where were the words in the Bill which declared that the appointment would lie with the managers? He ventured to assert that too much was left to assumption.

said that personally he did not much care whether the words of the Amendment were put in or not, but the matter was dark, and all the darker because there were now two sets of existing managers—managers under the School Boards, who had no right of appointment, and managers of denominational schools, who had that right. He would have thought that if ever there was a point on which a Bill should be explicit it was this.

said the effect of the Amendment would be absolutely fatal in a large number of cases to the object which his hon. friend had in view. There were many parishes in which the sole manager of the school was the incumbent of the parish, and the addition of the words proposed would involve a serious limitation. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said he was not clear that the words carried out the intentions of his hon. friend, but at the same time it was very desirable that it should be made clear that the appointment was made by the whole body of managers and not by one man alone. There were certain trust deeds where the incumbent or the proprietor of the school had the sole power of appointing the teachers.

If there are trust deeds such as the hon. Member speaks of—and it is possible that there may be—then I think there is a case for inserting words to make the point clear.

said it was evidently the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that the whole body of managers should have a voice in all cases. As he was willing to introduce words to make it perfectly clear, he would suggest to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.

thought it would be well to lay down the principle that powers which were not to be exercised by the managers should be exercised by the local education authority. Would it not be better to say that the authority should have whole control of the school except so far as concerned certain definite matters which were reserved to the managers?

said that after the assurance of the Leader of the House that this point would be made perfectly clear ho would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

opposed the Amendment. The Committee had, by implication, if not directly, decided that the education authority should neither have the duty nor the right to mix itself up in denominational matters. He thought the sub-Section as it stood accurately expressed the intention of the Government.

said it was possible to conceive grounds other than denominational grounds on which it might be desirable to withhold consent to an appointment. A teacher might go to school intoxicated. In so flagrant a case he did not suppose any difficulty would arise; but there might be other features of a man s conduct which made his appointment undesirable.

said he was of opinion that a case such as the hon. Member had referred to would come within the phrase "educational grounds." He could not conceive anything more detrimental to education than that a teacher should go to school intoxicated.

said this point raised the question as to whether secular instruction included everything which was not religion. Ho suggested that the authority should he empowered to object to an appointment on all grounds which were not of a religious character. It would be much better to put it in that form.

inquired if the term "educational grounds" was not interpreted by sub-Section 2 of Clause 8, which gave power to the Board of Education to decide on disputes arising between the local education authority and the managers as to what was secular and what religious education. Would not "education grounds" mean secular instruction?

said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the division between religious and educational grounds was clear and exhausted. They could not agree with him, as there were many matters which might lie between. It would be a simple and logical proceeding to make one definite and make the other cover everything else. The adoption of words providing that everything which was not religious was a matter for the consent of the local authority would put an end to all doubt.

asked why the Committee should not exclude from the consideration of the local education authority all grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools.

said the words "educational grounds" had already been introduced into Clause (a), and contended that it would be inconvenient to vary them in the present place. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen that they should map cut the whole field of what was religious and what was not, there might be questions which affected both the religious and the secular side. He took it that habitual drunkenness would affect a man's qualification to impart either secular or religious knowledge. The same might be said with regard to the case of a violent-tempered man.

Are the Government satisfied that the words carry out their intention? Would "educational grounds" cover moral instruction?

said the context clearly showed what the term meant.

said it seemed to him it would be necessary by-and-bye to have a very considerable extension of the definition Clause in order to provide the definitions of the many phrases which were used in the Bill as if they were precise technical terms, whereas they had no technical meaning at all.

said there was a good deal in the argument of the Attorney General, but still he considered the phrase "educational grounds" a very bad one indeed, and ho feared it would land them into all kinds of difficulties. Suppose a master was appointed by the managers, and the education authority were asked for their consent. Would the latter body be able to do anything more than ask the man for his qualifications? He might have a first-class certificate, but on many other grounds be entirely unfitted, for that special locality, to be entrusted with the educational instruction. But if these words were put in he was not at all sure that the education authority would be able to go outside the teacher's efficiency, from the point of view of scholarship alone. He very much doubted whether, for example, in the words "educational grounds" they could put any meaning relating to moral grounds. He did not think they should adhere to this form of words, and in the case in which they were already appointed in the Bill they could be changed on the Report stage. They provided here that the authority was not to interfere if the grounds were connected with religious instruction in the school. Those were the words of the Government themselves, and he thought the proper course would be to put in the same sort of qualification with reference to the dismissal of teachers, and confine the rights and jurisdiction of the managers to matters pertaining directly to the religious instruction of the school. He thought the Committee would do well to apply these words to this part of the Bill as well.

said the suggestion of his hon. friend would have careful consideration when another stage of the Bill was reached. He suggested that doubts should not now be raised as to sub-Section (a.) He agreed that the points which had been raised deserved careful consideration.

pointed out that sub-Section (a) applied to a totally different state of affairs. It seemed to him to be important that they should have the same words in regard to the appointment as they had with reference to the dismissal of the teachers.

said he was not quite sure whether the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were present upstairs when the Clergy Discipline Bill was considered, but in that ease they found it difficult to apply the same words to morals and misconduct. In the light of that Bill it would require the utmost care under this Bill, to bring within the purview of the local authority persons whose morals might not be all that could be desired. He hoped they would have some words introduced specifically pointing out what the grounds were upon which the local authority might withhold their consent.

said that he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend, on the ground that there ought to be an absolute right of appeal to the local authority. He did not think that that interfered with the power of the managers to deal with the religious instruction. The managers might make that a pretext for dismissal, but it would give security to a teacher to know that he had got a right of appeal, and that any action on the part of the local managers would have to go before another tribunal. It was right that such an appeal should exist. They must take it that the managers would be the judges of what was religious instruction, but even in those cases there ought to be an appeal to the local education authority, who ought to decide whether the teacher should to be dismissed. If his hon. friend divided the Committee he should support him.

said he understood the Committee were quite content with the assurance the Government had given. They agreed that this paragraph should be brought into harmony with the earlier paragraph, and the Government were ready to consider whether the earlier words ought not to be amended somewhat in the direction suggested, though perhaps not exactly in that direction. This was, after all, a question of drafting. After the long discussions which had taken place previously upon this point, the right hon. Gentleman opposite now suggested that this question should be dragged in again. Suppose a teacher were dismissed from a Roman Catholic school?

said he was really arguing from the analogy of dismissal. They were rather dealing with the question of consent to an appointment. In all cases the managers ought to lay before the local education authority the grounds upon which they proposed to appoint the teachers. Although the teacher's fitness to give religious instruction was within their cognisance, never theless the whole matter ought to be submitted to the local education authority.

said that object was not carried out by the words of the Amendment. The suggestion was that these words should be omitted. He thought the Committee understood that the local education authority was not to be mixed up with a question of this kind. How could they ask a Protestant authority to decide whether a person was qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine? The thing was preposterous. He could not think that that was what the right hon. Gentleman meant.

said they must assume that the education authority would have the common sense to see that, if the managers thought he was the best person to teach, they, the local authority, ought to recognise that fact.

said that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that a local authority of common sense would accept the opinion of the denominational managers, and in that case this Amendment was unnecessary. There might be one authority that had not got common-sense, and in that case there might be a Protestant authority discussing whether a Roman Catholic teacher was qualified to teach Roman Catholic doctrine. Surely they would be stultifying themselves by such a proposal.

said the Prime Minister very astutely fastened his examples on to the Roman Catholics, but this Bill was more for schools nominally Anglican, but really Nonconformist as far as the children were concerned. Supposing there were three candidates, each of them communicants in the Anglican Church, and suppose one was better than the others as a lay reader, choirmaster, or organist. Suppose the man best qualified for secular instruction had neither of these extraneous qualifications, he would be put on one side and the other candidate would be selected because he was a better organist. Would the county authority be entitled to say the managers had not selected the best man, and could they withhold their consent to such an appointment on that account? If not, he did not see where "educational grounds" came in. The managers would say that those were religious grounds, but they were not if they were purely educational grounds. Would the case he had mentioned be regarded as religious or upon educational grounds?

asked would the educational authority be entitled to call for the testimonials showing fitness of applicants upon educational grounds.

said it seemed to him that there were two authorities, one to look after nothing but religion and the other after nothing but secular instruction. The Committee must see that in the definition inserted there must be something that would make the proposal work. The proposal was to have two parties to the carrying out of the appointment of a teacher. One was the appointing body and the other the consenting body. Would one consenting manager representing the local authority have the right to propose the appointment of a teacher, or would the Government confine the proposal to the appointment solely to those dogmatic four who were the guardians of the dogmatic teaching?

said they would all act together.

said he knew they were all sitting together, but they were people with totally different functions. He wanted to know what part the body whose consent was to be necessary were to take in the matter. Were they to have the right of proposing candidates before the appointment was made or not?

said he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was capable of understanding the point if he gave his mind to it. The thing appeared to be perfectly workable. The six managers would meet and appoint the teacher. Any one of their number could make a suggestion to his colleagues. When they came to the conclusion to appoint Mr. A, that name would be sent to the clerk of the County Council on approbation, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the County Council would probably confirm the appointment of Mr. A, and there would be no further trouble. When Mr. A's name was submitted to the County Council as the local education authority by the managers in their corporate capacity, the County Council would take such steps as they thought proper to satisfy themselves as to his fitness for appointment as teacher. They could send for the testimonials if they liked before giving their consent, but they would probably only do so if they thought there was ground for supposing that there was some unfair conduct on the part of the managers. If they thought proper they could even see Mr. A before confirming the appointment. An hon. Gentleman had asked whether they would see the other candidates. No, that was not their business. [OPPOSITION cheers.] That cheer was really a very foolish one. They would not see the candidates, because the Committee decided yesterday, that the managers were to be the appointing body. Therefore, there was no use cheering. The local education authority was not to make the appointment, but to confirm it. The County Council being business men, and not anxious to misunderstand the Act, would take businesslike and sensible steps to ensure that the person appointed was a proper person to execute the function thrown upon him by the Bill. The whole proceeding was as simple, businesslike, and straightforward as it was possible to make it.

said the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a perfectly conclusive speech. The state of things which he had indicated was precisely that which his hon. friend sought to bring about by the Amendment, namely, that the local authority should have the power of absolute veto of the appointment. It was said that the local authority was not to be hampered in any way whatever, but it was hampered by the words of the Bill as it now stood. What they had to do was to consent; consent implied choice; and choice ought to be accompanied by the means of judging of the candidates

said they would not divide until they got this thing cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman called this a businesslike arrangement. It was a businesslike arrangement in which the one body paid and had all the responsibility of the business, and another body selected the staff. He would hardly call that a business-like arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman, with great ingenuity, had evaded the whole point. It was not a question j of candidate A. Supposing that A, B, and C were candidates, that A was suitable, that B was better than A, and that C was better than either, and that the managers, for reasons connected with the Church, selected candidate A, had the County Council the right to go behind that and say "You have not selected the best man and therefore we withhold our consent to the appointment of A"?

asked whether the local education authority was to have the power of testing the educational merits of more than one candidate in order that the best man belonging to the denomination should be headmaster of the school, from the educational point of view.

said he should have thought this question an extremely simple one. The local education authority would deal with this state of facts. There were two candidates, one of whom was distinctly superior in regard to secular education, and the inferior one was selected for some extraneous reason—because he could play the organ, or for some of the other reasons referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. He did not, of course, for a moment mean to say that the man who was best merely as a secular teacher was always to be selected, because in choosing a man they must have some regard to his qualification to teach in a denominational school. They must have regard to the two elements. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He really did not know what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen meant. What the Government proposed was this. Suppose there were two candidates for a Roman Catholic school. [An Hon. MEMBER: Why a Roman Catholic school? They should endeavour to realise the fact that there were Roman Catholics. Suppose they were dealing with a Roman Catholic school, and that there were two candidates for a teachership, one a Roman Catholic and a fairly good teacher, and the other a pronounced Agnostic.

That is not the point I put.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is the point.

I say it is not the point.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is the point.

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had not stated the point he put. If one of the candidates was an Agnostic that, of course, was a religious ground, and ho took it that the local authority would have no right to deal with the matter. Suppose that in the case of a Roman Catholic school there were two candidates—both Catholics—and one was more helpful for the Sunday school or the organ than the other, who was the better man from the secular instruction point of view, and the man who was suitable for the organ was selected, would the county authority have power to refuse consent to the appointment of that man?

said he should say that it was on educational grounds, the denominational qualifications being equal, if they selected the inferior man for some extraneous reason.

said the Attorney-General had not yet answered the question put to him. They wanted to know what power the local education authority would have in the way of withholding consent to an appointment made by the managers.

said that the Attorney General was entirely mistaken. He gladly admitted

called upon Mr. A. J. Balfour to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.

asked whether the Amendment which he had handed in at the Table should not come first.

The Member in charge of the Bill always takes precedence.

said that in moving his Amendment it would be quite unnecessary for him to add anything to what he had said yesterday. He had explained to the Committee the proposal of the Government, which he had every reason to hope was approved on both sides of the House; and he almost ventured to indulge in the expectation that without very lengthened debate it might be added to the Bill.

said he wished to move an Amendment to the Amendment, the effect of which would be readily understood. He gathered from the Attorney-General that the words of his Amendment expressed the idea of the Government; and he ventured to think that they were much better than the words proposed by the Prime Minister. He made bold to say that because they were the right hon. Gentleman's own words. They had discussed the question of the appointment of teachers; and now they were considering the question of dismissal. They had provided that the appointment would not be complete until the consent of the local authority was given: and he maintained that the dismissal should not be complete until the consent of the local authority was also obtained. The Amendment of the Prime Minister would not make that consent necessary in every case, as it proposed that consent should not be withheld if the dismissal were on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school. In practice the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would work as follows. For some reason or other a teacher incurred the disapproval of the managers, and was dismissed by them. No other condition was necessary up to that point. Then the teacher might go to the education authority and say he was dismissed on grounds other than grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school, and ask that he should be reinstated. He thought that the Committee would agree that the right way to proceed was to require the consent of the local authority before the act of dismissal became a complete act. That was done with reference to the question of appointment, and it ought to be done also with regard to dismissal.

said that, to a certain extent, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he preferred the Amendment of his right hon. friend. According to the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if the managers proposed to dismiss a teacher on grounds connected with religious teaching they would have to lay the matter before the local education authority and say, "You are bound to give your consent because the dismissal is based on grounds relating to religious teaching." That would involve considerable delay, and he thought it was a very reasonable proposal that if the managers believed that the retention of a particular teacher was incompatible with the religious character of the school, they should be at liberty to dismiss him. Of course, if the teacher showed that he was dismissed on grounds other than grounds connected with religious teaching, then the dismissal would be invalid without the consent of the local authority, and the post could not be filled up in the meantime, as the consent of the local authority would be required to the new appointment. The form of words proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury was convenient in itself and just to the interests of all concerned.

said he was very much surprised at the remarks which had just fallen from the Attorney-General, because they were absolutely inconsistent with the argument he addressed to the Committee on the last Amendment. Then he resisted a proposal to substitute words because he said that they would not be quite consistent with words in sub-Section (a) Now his hon, and learned friend proposed words which exactly followed words in the earlier part of the Clause and were parallel to them, and yet the Attorney-General refused to accept them.

said that the two cases were different. One dealt with the appointment where the consent of the local authority was necessary, the other with the dismissal where that consent was not necessary.

said that in both cases the words proposed by his hon. and learned friend would avoid a great deal of trouble and reference to the Education Department. Surely, it would work a great deal better in practice if the dismissal were not to take effect until the consent of the local authority had been obtained, rather than that it should take effect and be liable to be over-ruled afterwards by the local authority. In the latter case the teacher would be for a certain period under sentence of dismissal, although not actually dismissed. Surely, it would be more businesslike and more compatible with similar cases that the managers should send their statement at once to the local education authority, and have the matter decided once and for all. He greatly preferred the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, and was very much surprised that the Government had not accepted it.

said that no doubt many hon. Members were in favour of some form of appeal by teachers against capricious or unjustifiable dismissal, but he supposed that in the last resort they felt that an appeal to the Board of Education did exist under sub-Section 2. As to the particular question before the Committee, he would point out that the local authority would be a court of appeal in every case of dismissal, except cases where the dismissal was on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the schools. These cases would be of three kinds, and three kinds only—firstly, a change of faith on the part of the teacher, making it impossible for him to continue to give the denominational instruction required in a particular school; secondly, a failure, not by reason of a change of faith, to give in the school religious instruction in a proper way; and, thirdly, a course of life inconsistent with the giving of denominational instruction or any other form of instruction. In each of these cases he did not think that the teacher would wish to appear before the local education authority, as each would constitute an obvious justification for his leaving the school. He should regard with some apprehension, therefore, the reporting of every case beforehand to the local authority, which his hon. And learned friend's Amendment would require. He would much rather leave it to the local authority to decide any case where an appeal was lodged by the teacher or by a minority of the managers. He submitted that every practical purpose would be served by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because it had been held that the legal notice to which a head teacher was entitled was three months, unless he had contracted himself out of that right by a special agreement. That would give a full opportunity for appealing before the dismissal was finally given effect to. For that and other reasons, or the full knowledge of the details of that special question, he trusted the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury would be accepted.

said he was very sorry to hear the statement of his hon. friend who had just spoken. Only that morning he had received letters from teachers complaining of the insecurity of the tenure of their office. The point under discussion was that the matter should be decided before the teacher was dismissed. It was true that notice would have to be given, but he was not quite sure that it would be long enough to cover the period that might elapse before the meeting of the local authority. It would be better if the case of dismissal were decided by the local authority without putting the teacher or anyone else to the trouble and inconvenience of making a formal appeal. He did not see why the teacher should be dismissed before the matter was finally decided.

asked if the Amendment would include Sunday school work.

said he did not think that that would be included.

said he had put a question to the Prime

said a voluntary school under this Bill would be the same as a voluntary school under the present Act, and the teachers in the voluntary schools would be in the same position when this Bill passed as they were under the present Act.

agreed with his hon. friend near him that the teachers throughout the country would be generally in favour of this Amendment. He, however, desired to extend to the widest the powers of the local authority, and to limit, as far as possible, the exclusive functions of the managers. He still hold the opinion that the dismissal ought to be subject to the consent of the local authority, limited as it was by the words of the Prime Minister, and, holding that opinion, he would be forced to go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment.

thought the Amendment as it stood was extremely vague, and moved to substitute the words "directly related to" for the words "connected with." He desired to protect teachers from all kinds of pressure to perform extraneous duties for which, they were not paid by the ratepayers. The words, "connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school," were capable of very elastic interpretation. In moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, he would ask the Attorney General whether the grounds of dismissal would have to be specified in writing. If that were done, the local authority would have an opportunity of inquiring into those grounds, and of ascertaining whether or not they were sufficient. He thought the Committee would agree that the words he proposed were fairer to the teacher and more conducive to the interests of education than those proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury.

said he could really see very little difference between the two forms of words. That proposed by the Government had given general satisfaction to the people most interested, and therefore it would be well to adhere to it. As to the Question put by the hon. Member, he took it that if any dispute arose the managers would in some form state what their grounds were.

asked whether, in the event of this Amendment being debated, the Committee would be able to discuss the proposal of the hon. Member for North Camberwell with regard to extraneous duties?

agreed that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were extremely vague. Would they include, for instance, attendance at early celebrations, or anything of that kind? The point, however, was not of first-rate importance, and he would not advise his hon. friend to press his Amendment to a division.

, in view of the fact that the consideration of the larger question afterwards might be prejudiced by his proposal being now discussed, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

asked whether the words "connected with religious instruction in the school" were meant to apply to the school only while it was an elementary school under the local education authority.

asked whether the new Clause promised by the Government would extend to vesting in the managers, subject to the veto of the educational authority, the power of dismissal.

said he had nothing to add to the promise of the First Lord of the Treasury. As to the other point, the words applied to the giving of religious instruction in the school during school hours, including the hour of religious instruction.

, in view of the reply of the hon. and learned Member, said he would address his question directly to the First Lord of the Treasury.

My view, which I have over and over again stated, is that, in so far as functions are left to the managers of a school, they are left to be exercised by the managers as a body.

pointed out that in some cases the trust deeds were to be departed from.

In that case the trust deeds would have to be modified.

said it had not yet been stated how far the trust deeds were to be modified. This particular matter was part of a larger question which, sooner or later, would have to be dealt with in a definite manner, so that the Committee might know what the position of the new managers was to be.