My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl who leads the House a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is able to give your Lordships any information as to the course of business in this House during the next few days.

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for having given me notice of this Question. I am not able to give him an absolutely precise answer, but I think I can give some general information which will be of service to the House. As noble Lords know, the Education (Scotland) Bill is down for Committee to-day, and the Second Reading of the Prevention of Crime Bill is down for to-morrow. That Bill has come up, I think, in a somewhat less controversial form than seemed at one time possible. I do not think, therefore, that it will occupy a very great part of the time of your Lordships. The two remaining Bills of importance which we shall ask the House to consider are the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill and the Port of London Bill. On Monday next my noble friend Lord Morley is to make his statement with regard to Indian Policy, and although I cannot say for certain—I may be in a position to do so to-morrow—I think it is possible that in view of that debate not being likely to occupy any very great period of time, it may be well to put some other business down for that day. Speaking generally, next week will be devoted, if your Lordships please, to the alternate consideration of the two measures I have indicated. There will be no doubt one or two other small Bills coming up from another place, but I do not think anything of a controversial character. I should hope, therefore, that Parliament may be prorogued somewhat earlier than at one time appeared to be likely.

I should be much obliged if the noble Earl would give me an assurance that the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill will not be taken next Monday.

If the House agree, I think it would be a reasonable course to take that Bill on Tuesday.

I should be very grateful to the noble Earl if he would be good enough to take it on Tuesday. But I would point out that there is some danger of his rather optimistic estimate not being fulfilled. Assuming that Amendments are carried to those two Bills, how will it be possible to prorogue on Friday week?

I never mentioned the date of Friday week.

The Port of London Bill is a very controversial measure, and there are great differences of opinion about it. We shall not have had time really to consider it by Monday, and I hope, therefore, it will not be taken on that day.

My Lords, I beg to move the omission of the word "now" in order to insert at the end of the Motion the words "this day three months." About the genesis of of this Bill we know very little. It was, I believe, promoted in the other House by some private Members. What examination it received in the House of Commons I do not know, but the noble Earl, in introducing it to your Lordships' House, said he believed it was an agreed Bill, or nearly so. But almost every provision in the Bill was taken exception to. It enacted, in the first place, that accommodation must be provided for the Press; in the second place, it provided that if members of the Press felt themselves dissatisfied with the accommodation they might apply to the Local Government Board, who were to settle the question; and, in the third place, there was a proposed enactment that, on the application of any newspaper, notice of every meeting was to be sent to the office of that newspaper by the county clerk or other official. Those were, I think, nearly all the enactments in the Bill. Those enactments have all been struck out, and all that remains is the provision that the Press is to have a right of being present at the meetings of local authorities. We do not know that there is any necessity for this measure. No practical grievance has been alleged. I have been told by more than one member of the Press that the Press do not require the Bill. Why in the world we should cumber the Statute-book with surplusage of this sort I am at a loss to understand. For those reasons, and for those reasons only, I am very sorry to be obliged to oppose the Bill. Even my regard for the noble Earl in charge of it will not make me willingly consent to the placing of what I consider surplusage on the Statute-book.

My Lords, this is a Bill to give right of entry to the Press as regards the meetings of local authorities. There seems to be a fear in your Lordships' House that the provision of accommodation for the Press to these meetings will load to large expenditure. I do not share that fear, and for this reason. The public generally do not care to read reports of the meetings of county councils, parish councils, and similar local authorities, and, that being the case, newspapers do not send reporters to those meetings. Consequently, there will not be that rush to attend the meetings of local authorities which some noble Lords appear to be afraid of. I do not think there would be much change in the attitude of the public with regard to this question. But, if I am wrong in thinking that the public do not desire to read these reports, is it not right that a ratepayer who wishes to know what is going on in his own parish council should be able to find out from the local paper? Will he not be a better citizen for the interest he takes in the administration of the rates by his local authority? At present, as I understand it, if a man wishes to know what has been taking place at the meeting of his parish council he has to ask his parish councillor, and although I desire to speak with the greatest respect of such an august personage as a parish councillor, yet I am inclined to think that he is, perhaps, more a disseminator of gossip than a purveyor of accurate news. This Bill passed through the other House supported by both parties, and it received no opposition from the county councils or local authorities generally. By this Bill the Radical and Conservative Press are placed on exactly the same footing. That, perhaps, is a thing to be desired in view of the decision early in the year in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason. The judgment in that case laid it down that a local authority had power, not only to exclude all the members of the Press, but to exclude certain Pressmen and allow others to remain. Your Lordships will not think that a fair state of the law. It is surely better that the Press of both parties should be placed on the same footing. I am given to understand that the Press desire this little Bill, and it does not seem to me to be contentious in any way. It is quite true that some of us are rather cross at times with the local Press, but that is because they report what we do say and not what we thought we ought to have said. I do not think there is anything quite so gruesome as reading in the morning one's rhetorical efforts of the night before. I trust that, in view of the fact that this was an unopposed Bill in the House of Commons, and that all the important Amendments moved in your Lordship's House have been accepted, the Bill will now be allowed to pass.

My Lords, when we were in Committee on this Bill I proposed an Amendment which did not meet with acceptance on the part of your Lordships. From that action on my part I may be supposed to be in favour of the Bill, and, indeed, at that time I regarded it as a matter of comparative indifference whether it was passed or not. But I confess that the more I have reflected on this Bill the less case there appears to me to be for it, and the more reasons why your Lordships should not assist in passing the Bill into law. I do not, of course, object in the slightest degree to the Press attending the meetings of local authorities and giving the fullest publicity to what takes place there, but I think that Parliament would be wise in not interfering in this matter with the discretion of the local authorities. As far as I know, there has been no substantial ground for thinking that there has been unfairness on the part of any local authorities. These bodies are responsible to their electors, and if any number of them combined to do that which was objectionable the electors would have an opportunity at the next election of giving expression to their wishes and signifying their desire that the Press should be admitted. I believe there is no real ground for anxiety on the part of the Press with regard to admission to the meetings of these authorities, and there is, I think, substantial reason why Parliament should not interfere with the comparative independence of local authorities in framing by-laws for themselves as to the conduct of their own meetings. Consider to what length the supporters of this Bill really desired to go. In order to allow the Press security to attend they wanted to have notice given to the Press of all meetings of the local authorities, and to provide that a certain period must elapse before the meeting could take place. Surely that was strictly irrelevant to the purpose of this Bill, and was an interference with the freedom of the local authorities in the conduct of their business. I ask your Lordships to consider this question for a moment in respect of your own practice and the practice in another place. The admission of the Press to hear debates in Parliament may be said to be vital to the work of Parliament generally, although that admission has been only gradually established, and even within my own memory the Press have been excluded from the other House on the initiative of a single member. Would your Lordships for a moment dream of prescribing rules of procedure under which your meetings should be held, and agree to a statute regulating the admission of the Press to the Reporters' Gallery of this House? The matter is left to the discretion of this House and the other House of Parliament, and why the same discretion should not be given in the case of local authorities I am at a loss to conceive. We have passed the days of Dr. Johnson, one of the first reporters of the Parliamentary debates, who carried away as much as his memory would allow, and who admitted that he always gave the "Whig dogs" the worst of the argument. We have passed all that, and we now recognise that the attendance of the Press is essential, and every reasonable accommodation is provided for them. Your Lordships would never think of laying down rules on the subject, still less of agreeing to an Act which should override your own management of your own affairs; and I think it would be only respectful to local authorities to allow them the same liberty. Therefore, if the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment goes to a division, I shall follow him into the lobby.

My Lords, as I was responsible during the Committee proceedings on this Bill for moving three or four Amendments on behalf of the County Councils Association, I should like to say a few words before we go to a division. In the first place, let me remind the House that the Bill as it came up, although it had been spoken of as if it had met with very general support in the other House, certainly contained provisions which were very objectionable and extremely badly drafted. But my noble friend in charge of the Bill accepted every substantial Amendment that was moved both in the Committee stage and on Report, and as the Bill now stands, although it does lay down as a rule that reporters and the public should be admitted to the meetings of these authorities, yet it only in that respect puts into an Act of Parliament what is the universal practice, at all events on the part of the important local authorities. I am quite aware that, in these circumstances, the Bill might be said to be unnecessary. The County Councils Association have never taken exception to the principle of the Bill, and considering that it was not opposed on Second Reading and that all the Amendments suggested have been accepted, I think it would be a very unusual proceeding to throw out the Bill at this stage now that it has been divested of all objectionable clauses. I had some difficulty in following the argument of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Courtney. Although he defends what I should always wish to defend, the giving of full discretion to county councils and other bodies, yet one of his arguments was that it would be very inconvenient for notice to have to be sent of all meetings together with an agenda of the business to be taken. The noble Lord does not seem to have mastered the fact that that clause has been struck out of the Bill, and that there is now no suggestion of anything of the sort. I may go further. With regard to the principal authorities the procedure of giving notice is already dealt with under statute, and the clause that was in this Bill only referred to the minor authorities who might call meetings without giving any notice. In these circumstances I regret that my noble friend is going, at this late stage of the Bill, to try and reject it, especially in view of the fact that we have been courteously met by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and that he has accepted all our Amendments.

My Lords, I trust that the doctrine which my noble friend Lord Belper has laid down will not be held good in this House. His doctrine, as I understand it, is this, that after we have road a Bill a second time we are not to reject it at the final stage if the Amendments we have moved in Committee have been accepted. The argument is very often used that we ought to see what we can do with a Bill in Committee, whether we can make it workable, and not reject it on Second Reading. But even though we may find that our Amendments are accepted we ought to reserve to ourselves the right to reject a Bill on Third Reading. The consequence of the opposite doctrine laid down by the noble Lord will be that we shall have to reject a lot of Bills on Second Reading for fear we should find in Committee that we could not alter—

I beg the noble Duke's pardon. I laid down no doctrine. What I said was that the Bill had not been opposed on Second Reading, and that all the important Amendments moved to it having been accepted it should not be rejected on Third Reading.

I apologise for using the word "doctrine"; I will substitute the word "appeal." I do not think the appeal of the noble Lord is a convincing one. I want to know what is the argument in favour of giving the Press a statutory provision which they have never yet assumed. As I understand, it is that the public may be accurately informed of what is going on in these local bodies. I cannot conceive any other object. Now, what is the value of the information which the public gets in respect of these meetings from the Press? I happen, since the former stages of this Bill, to have had personal experience of the way in which the matter acts. At the last meeting of the county council over which I had the honour to preside, a member of the council made an attack upon the chairman of one of the committees, and proceeded to read out from a newspaper a report of a speech which the committee chairman had made at a former meeting of the county council, for the purpose of showing that the chairman had been inconsistent. I at once called the attention of the council to the matter, and said I doubted very much whether it was in order to read a report of this kind, because there was no guarantee that it was a correct report, and we had not seen the newspaper to which the member was referring. Upon this the chairman of the committee who was attacked said he could end the matter at once because he had seen the report. It was, he said, absolutely incorrect and totally misrepresented what he said. That, my Lords, is a practical instance of the value of admitting the Press to the meetings of local authorities. I will say no more, except that I trust my noble friend will take a division, and, if he does, I shall certainly support his Amendment.

My Lords, the principle of this Bill was not opposed on Second Reading, and I think the House must universally recognise that the noble Earl in charge of it did everything he possibly could in Committee to meet the objections taken. In those circumstances, what is there left in the Bill to which the noble Earl objects? There is left a statutory right to the Press to attend the meetings of local authorities. Probably in the case of county councils that right will not be of such great importance, because the Press are now allowed to attend the meetings of those bodies. But your Lordships must, I think, have fresh in your memories the scandals which have recently arisen in connection with the expenditure of public money by the smaller bodies. It must be borne in mind that what gave rise to this Bill was the claim of the local authority of Tenby to select the particular reporter who should attend their meetings and to say to another particular reporter that he should not attend. If a local authority had the absolute power of dictating who should be the only channel of intercouse between them and the public, and if they had a body the majority of which was corrupt and in which corruption was a regular, constant, and understood part of the proceedings—and we have seen some of the smaller bodies in which these things have been—it is only a step further to secure the attendance of a corrupt reporter. It is to remove objections of that sort that it is desired to provide for the admission of the independent Press, and I think it would be rather unusual at this stage to reject a Bill the principle of which has not been seriously attacked.

My Lords, I feel that I need add very little to what has been said. In fact, it would be impossible to do so without incurring the danger of repetition. But I think I may congratulate myself on the distinguished convert I have made below the gangway. Lord Belper was good enough to say that I had done my best to meet him and other critics in Committee, and I can only say that I am gratified that I should have been able to do so so successfully. I am only sorry that I have not made another convert below the gangway. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has objected to this Bill—shall I say?—from the first minute that he set eyes upon it; but, curiously enough, he did not happen to see it until it was too late for him to give notice of rejection on Second Reading. The noble Earl himself moved Amendments which were, I hope, designed to improve the Bill, and I can only regret, having done my best by accepting his Amendments to placate him, that the more his appetite has been fed the greater it has become. We now find him moving the rejection of the Bill at its final stage. The noble Earl claimed there was no necessity for this Bill. Your Lordships will excuse my not going into that point at any length after the reference to the Tenby case by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. That case was a very great surprise to many laymen, and it was with the object of reversing the decision there given, which I have no doubt was perfectly correct in law, that those for whom I am acting promoted this Bill. Next, the noble Earl referred to the opinion of the Press regarding this Bill, and I regret he did not go into that point in greater detail. He told us that several Pressmen had informed him that they did not like the Bill. I am advised that there is only one newspaper in the whole of this kingdom of any importance that has objected to the Bill. It is one of the prominent London evening papers, and a paper which probably knows less about the subject than any other, for the reason that this grievance is very much more a provincial grievance than a London grievance. But I might mention, as an answer to that, that I have the names here of about a dozen of the most prominent newspapers, all of whom have expressed their approval of the Bill. They are the Newspaper Owner, the Birmingham Post, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, the Western Daily Mercury, the Northern Echo, the Manchester Evening Chronicle, the Glasgow Herald, and so on. The Bill is supported by important newspapers spread over different parts of the country. It is promoted by the National Union of Journalists, a young body, but a body which represents about 1,500 working journalists. I admit that it is not supported by the Institute of Journalists, of which the noble Lord opposite is a distinguished member. The Institute of Journalists is, of course, the senior, and, I do not deny, the most important association of journalists that exists; but I believe the reason they would not support the Bill was that they had a Bill of their own dealing with the point in a slightly different manner. I am, however, authorised by the honorary secretary of the Institute of Journalists to say that the Institute have not inspired or in any way had anything to do with the opposition to the Bill this afternoon on its final stage. I think it would be a great pity if the Bill were rejected now owing to the opportunity that would be thus given to local authorities, if they desired to do so, to conduct their proceedings behind closed doors and without the light of public opinion being shed upon them. The cases of West Ham, Poplar, and one or two others have really scandalised public opinion throughout the country. I do not suggest for one moment that these cases are typical of English local government, but, if such cases exist, those will be the sort of authorities which will avail themselves of the power to sit in camera, and the task of finding out the existence of such cases will be made more difficult than if the Bill were allowed to pass. I submit that a case has been made out for the Bill, and I trust your Lordships will pass it.

My Lords, it hardly seems necessary for me to say anything after the exhaustive debate which has taken place to-day. I may, however, observe that, although His Majesty's Government were not originally responsible for the introduction of this Bill, they have supported it in all its stages in both Houses. The Bill was introduced at the instance of the National Union of Journalists in consequence of a certain legal decision. I submit that the principle of the Bill has been already accepted by your Lordships' House, and that as almost all the Amendments of serious substance have been so well met, it would be very unreasonable if the Bill were not now passed. On the Second Reading the Bill had the advantage of receiving the support of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, who concurred in the object of the Bill in view of the decision in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason. The noble Duke opposite has referred to certain inaccuracies in the reports of proceedings of local authorities. I am afraid it would be very difficult to provide that there should never be inaccuracies in the reports of local authorities, or, indeed, of more important bodies, or even of Parliament itself. The only way of dealing with that question would be, I suppose, by the appointment of a Press censor whose duty it would be to revise the reports, but I think the noble Duke would hardly propose that such an appointment be made. I trust that, the Bill having gone so far, your Lordships will allow it to pass.

My Lords, I always think the House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Camperdown for the vigilance with which he watches over these minor measures, which sometimes do not receive quite the amount of attention which they deserve; but upon this occasion I am almost inclined to suggest that he has pushed his watchfulness too far. I do not mean to say that I regard this Bill as an important measure. Indeed, I am not sure that if I were asked whether it was desirable to introduce such a measure at all I should answer in the affirmative; but the measure has been introduced. After all, what does it do? It merely affirms this, that the Press has the right to be admitted to meetings of certain of our local authorities, to which is added the very important reservation that those authorities have the right, on certain occasions and for sufficient reasons, to exclude the Press. That is not really a very serious or very dangerous proposal, and it is not an innovation, because it really is a proposal which brings the law into conformity with the actual practice at present followed. This Bill has been a good deal discussed; it has met with a very large amount of support, and I have received a communication from the National Union of Journalists very strongly urging your Lordships not to reject it at the last moment. We have to remember that in the House of Commons its principle was scarcely disputed, that it passed scathless through Standing Committee and through Report stage, and that on Third Reading not a voice was raised against it. When the Bill came up to us criticisms were made and Amendments proposed which were accepted in a very reasonable spirit by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. We have also to-night had what seemed to my mind a very important piece of testimony from my noble friend the chairman of the County Councils Association. I think the opinion of great associations like the County Councils Association, the Municipal Corporations Association, and the Poor Law Unions Association, is entitled to respect, and not one of those great bodies, so far as I am aware, has raised any objection to this Bill. For these reasons I must say I think it would only be for some very special or urgent cause that your Lordships would be justified in rejecting the Bill at the very last stage. Therefore, much as I regret to differ from my noble friend below the gangway, I shall vote against him if he goes to a division.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You mean that the subsection does already contain this provision?

Subjection (3) applies to all children.

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.

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

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.

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

Certainly.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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—

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.

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.

Is the noble Earl satisfied?

No; I have had no answer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

accepted the Amendment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

accepted the Amendment.

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.

, 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