be found such an amount of independence valuable, must be received by the House and such an extent of variety; and he of Commons with caution and should be thought it would be most unfortunate submitted to the inquiry which the if the result of this Motion of the hon. Prime Minister was kind enough to conBaronet the Member for the University cede. He did not know whether the of London (Sir John Lubbock) were to House would allow him to offer an opibring all our schools of primary, se- nion upon the question which had been condary, and University education to the raised by the right hon. Gentleman the same cut-and-dried level—all running Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forinto the same groove of the Privy Coun- ster), but the right hon. Gentleman cil under a Minister of Education. The seemed to think it a great grievance noble Lord the Member for Middlesex that the Minister in the House of Com(Lord George Hamilton) he understood mons who moved the Education Estito be in favour of the Motion for ap- mates was not in the Cabinet. Now, pointing an independent Minister of for the life of him, he (Lord Randolph Education, and he had little doubt that Churchill) could not see why the Ministhe right hon. Gentleman the Member ter of Education should have a seat in for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who now the Cabinet. Certainly, when the great sat on the Treasury Bench and repre- educational controversy was going on in sented the Education Department in the country, with which the right hon. that House, would, if his tongue were Gentleman's name was inseparately connot tied, be also, in a certain degree, in nected, there was every reason why the favour of it. While he was alluding to the Vice President should be in the Cabinet, right hon. Gentleman, perhaps he might because, at that time, education was also be allowed to say that he thought one of the most vital and burning questhe Motion of the hon. Member for the tions of the day. But would they say, University of London was somewhat now that the question of education had uncharitably conceived, and that it might probably been settled, and was likely be taken as a reflection upon, and a to run in the same groove for a quarter bad compliment to, the right hon. Gen- of a century, that it was necessary to tleman. [Cries of "No!" It certainly lay down a hard-and-fast rule that the might be so taken by some ill-natured Minister of Education should be in the minds; but, as far as he (Lord Randolph Cabinet? In his opinion, there were Churchill) was concerned, he was only many Offices which should take precetoo glad to have the opportunity of re- dence, so far as the Cabinet was concognizing with all sincerity the ability cerned, of the Office of Minister of Eduand earnestness with which the right cation; and he, therefore, did not concur hon. Gentleman had, on all occasions, in the dogmatic character of the right discharged the duties of his Office and hon. Gentleman's conclusion. After all, the intense desire he always seemed to it appeared to him that this was one of have to place before the House of Com- those "fads" which were very apt to mons the fullest statement of the exact come from a certain group of Members condition of the education of the coun- who sat between the two Columns on the try. If it was in any way a credit to opposite side of the House, and which, a Minister to be able to get his Esti- when they came to examine them, would mates easily through the House of Com- be found to be exceedingly unsubstanmons, he doubted whether it was pos- tial, and might be generally summed up sible to find anyone who got them passed in the common expression-" What's in more easily than the right hon. Gentle- a name? They had a Minister of EduHe dare say the right hon. Gen- cation in the House of Commons at the tleman was more or less in favour of present moment. They were more forthis Motion. Speaking with all respect tunately situated, because they had two of right hon. Members who had occupied Ministers of Education; and, as far as a position which was, more or less, one the patronage was concerned, he did of inferiority, he had no doubt that it not know what might be the present would be their wish and desire to make state of matters, except that the Prime the position more independent and su- Minister had stated that as far as papreme. Therefore, anything which came tronage was concerned, there was an from an ex-Vice President or the present agreement between the two Ministers. Vice President, although it would be very All that he could say on the matter was, Lord Randolph Churchill man. that when his Relative was President of the Council, that was invariably the case at that time. Lord Robert Montague was Vice President at the time, and the noble Lord make appointments to several vacancies; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) recollected perfectly well that there was no separate patronage on the part of the Lord President at that time. The patronage was not swept up into the Lord President's hands, but communications invariably took place between his noble Relative and Lord Robert Montague, who filled the post of Vice President. He could not see that divided patronage was an evil, and it certainly used to be the custom in Ireland, before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) went there, to divide the patronage between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. He was quite aware that that was not after the right hon. Gentleman went there as Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman did away with that rule, and he did away also with the Privy Council; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was sufficiently successful in his operations in Ireland to induce him to advocate changes in other Departments. Before the right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland the patronage there was invariably a matter of consultation between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. He thanked the House for having permitted him to make these remarks, and he wished also to express his thanks to the Prime Minister for the statement he had made, and also the sincere hope that the House would in every way follow the advice the right hon. Gentleman had given, and accept a Committee of Inquiry. MR. THOROLD ROGERS (who was very imperfectly heard) said, that what he wanted to see was that whenever the Committee was appointed-and he understood the Government to accept the proposal-it should turn its attention not only to the question of how far it was expedient to appoint a Minister of Education, but to various legitimate questions connected with University Education and the public schools. He said that because he believed it was necessary to introduce very serious alterations into the existing system, which produced an effect upon various public institutions that was almost ruinous. At the present moment there was no person in the House charged with the duty of answering Questions relating to the Universities and public schools. There was no opportunity for a Member of Parliament to ask any Question upon such subjects of any person in authority, and it was impossible, therefore, to get a satisfactory answer. It was his duty last year to make an effort to preserve a great public school from rapine. Some time ago the Dean and Chapter of a certain city, in defiance of an Act of Parliament, seized on property which belonged to a school and appropriated it to the use of one of its own members. Wishing to ask a Question with regard to this alleged act of rapine, he found that he could get no answer from any Member of the Government, and he was compelled to have recourse to a Member of the House who happened to be one of the Governing Bodies of the school. He believed there was another school in the same position; and, in point of fact, whenever the Dean and Chapter of a city had anything to do with a public school, they invariably attempted to rob the school of what belonged to it. He thought there ought to be someone in that House officially connected with the Government with authority to answer Questions upon such subjects, and also about the action of the Civil Service Commission. That Body was now practically a great examining University, and upon its decisions depended the distribution of a large amount of patronage and of public money. He did not say that the Commissioners did not discharge their duties in the best possible way they could; but if the House would look at the examination papers they would agree with him that nothing could be more foolish, irrelevant, or improper for the purpose of discovering the capacity of the person examined than the questions asked by the officers who conducted the examination. And yet there was no one in the House who was able to get up and answer any Question on the subject, or say whether the examination papers were proper or not. He contended that there ought to be some person in that House of whom they might ask Questions as to these very important branches of education. There was no such individual at the present moment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consent to enlarge the terms of the Re- | insure that it should be taken at a reaference, so that they should be wide sonable hour, he begged to move that enough to include the question whether the debate be now adjourned. the Minister of Education, whoever he might be, should not be made respon-That the Debate be now adjourned." Motion made, and Question proposed, sible for every detail, because it would (Sir Herbert Maxwell.) be irrelevant and foolish to interfere with the domestic government of a school, and not to give information when it was asked for. For instance, an Act of Parliament was passed in that House under the last Government which involved the establishment of a new College at Oxford on principles altogether contrary to those which were then existing in the University. If there had been a responsible Minister of Education he did not think that Act would have passed-at any rate, not in the form in which it passed in direct violation of the principles of other existing Acts. He had heard of a School Inspector who abused his position by delivering highly inflammatory addresses. Such conduct was very reprehensible; yet there was no responsible Minister in that House to interrogate about it. There were undoubtedly branches of education in this country which required a certain amount of Parliamentary supervision; and there ought, at any rate, to be in the House of Commons some person charged with the duty of answering Questions not connected with the domestic control of Universities and public schools, but the duty of answering reasonable Questions as to how far the authorities of the schools were carrying out the duties imposed upon them by Act of Parliament. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to extend the terms of the Reference, in order that the Select Committee might inquire how far the Minister of Education might be made responsible for the performance of their duties by the authorities of the higher class schools connected with secondary public schools and University educa tion. SIR HERBERT MAXWELL said, they had had for the last three hours an interesting discussion upon a very important subject; but he wished to remind the House that they had also been promised a statement upon another interesting and important subject-namely, the re-adjustment of Scotch Business. And in order to enable the Home Secretary to made a statement upon that subject, and to Mr. Thorold Rogers SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, he trusted that the House would allow him to say a word by way of explanation, and he hoped that the hon. Baronet opposite would not press his Motion, seeing that the House had very nearly arrived at the end of the discussion. He rather gathered from the course the debate had taken that the House assented to the suggestion which he had himself thrown out, and which had also been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). Indeed, the Prime Minister had in his speech suggested a somewhat similar course; and if that were the general feeling of the House, he (Sir John Lubbock) thought that some such Resolution as this might be adopted "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider how far Ministerial responsibility in connection with the Votes for Education, Science, and Art may be better secured." If that Resolution met the views of the House, and if the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate, he (Sir John Lubbock) would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment; and, as he technically could not do so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) to move a Resolution to this effect, which he understood Her Majesty's Government would not oppose and which would meet with the general acceptance of the House. MR. SALT said, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) would not press the Motion for Adjournment, because the discussion was evidently just coming to a useful close. The proposition made by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Lubbock) seemed to be a reasonable proposal-namely, that a Committee with fairly wide powers should be appointed. He had no wish to say more, as the question had already been well discussed, except that he always viewed with alarm a serious division of Departments, unless the matter had been well MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate. and carefully considered and brought | unless they had a Department of their forward on the responsibility of Her Ma- own for administering the laws relating jesty's Government. Under any other to education in Scotland. [Cries of conditions it would be a very serious No!"] Hon. Gentlemen representmatter, especially when they had a Go- ing English constituencies might say vernment Department working fairly "No!" but would they get any Scotch well; and they did not know what they Member to say "No?" What he wished were likely to get if they embarked in to point out to the House was that something entirely new. they had had an educational system in Scotland for more than 300 years, and the administration had been placed under a Department in England. The whole of the staff and the heads of the Department were in England; and, as a natural consequence, the system was so unsatisfactory that unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who was about to make a statement in regard to the future administration of Scotch affairs, presented some solution of the difficulty now experienced in dealing with the question of education in Scotland, any measure proposed on the subject would be totally unsatisfactory to the people of Scotland and the Scotch Members generally. SIR HERBERT MAXWELL said, it was with the greatest possible reluctance that he had proposed the adjournment of the debate. He had merely made it in view of the importance of the statement which had been promised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. MR. RAMSAY wished to suggest, before the Motion was withdrawn, that the Scotch Members would like to have some information as to whether the Select Committee proposed to be appointed could not inquire into the question of placing the administration of the laws relating to education in Scotland under some authority which should be connected exclusively with Scotland. [Cries of "Order!"] MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. MR. BRYCE said, he was anxious to disclaim, and he thought he might also do so on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that the construction to be put upon the Motion was that it was an attempt to force upon the country a Minister of Education, who should necessarily have a seat in that House, or to increase the number of the Cabinet. He did not think that either of those two ideas were SIR JOHN LUBBOCK begged to in the minds of those who supported withdraw his Amendment. the Motion. He conceived it possible that the Minister of Education, if appointed, should not be in the Cabinet; and he fully recognized the force of the arguments of the Prime Minister against increasing the number of the Members of the Cabinet. But he should like to add that, without increasing the Cabinet, there was already a Cabinet Officer in existence to which no definite duty was attached-namely, the Lord Privy Seal. and the Minister of Education might be substituted for that Officer. What they They objected to was a dual control. objected to the fact that there was one Minister who had the practical responsibility for the educational work of the country, and another Minister who had the supreme control of the Department. There was one Minister whose duty it was to frame the Estimates and consider to take any interest or concern in it? Take the case of the Training Colleges. How was it possible to arrange for the reception of teachers at the Universities, or for the relations which the Universities ought to bear towards the secondary schools and the elementary schools, if there was no Minister of Education with a seat in that House? He admitted the necessity of maintaining a large measure of independence for the secondary schools as well as for the Universities; and he would be the last to propose that such schools should be placed under central control; but there should be an opportunity of making suggestions, and of showing how such institutions were working, and what was required, in order to bring about a certain extent of harmonious co-operation between them. There was all the difference in the world between increasing the arbitrary and bureaucratic authority of a Central Department and enlarging the action of that Department in the line indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair). No one would desire to see the Central Authority invested with such a controling power over the Universities as was possessed by the State in Germany or France. Bearing in mind the importance of dealing with the various aspects which the subject presented, and of considering how best to make the Education Minister a true Minister of Public Instruction throughout the country, he thought the Committee ought to be sufficiently large to enable all these questions to be brought under discussion and fully considered. the way in which they should be spent | Universities. But how could that be on education; while another, who had carried out, if there was no Minister the ear of the Cabinet, and was capable of persuading it, was able to decide that certain legislative measures, and certain measures only, should be brought forward. They regarded that system as a divorce of power from responsibility, which did not exist in any other Department of the State; and they also looked upon it as an injury to the Public Service. It had been stated in the course of the debate that the functions of the State as regarded primary education and those of a Minister who should deal with secondary and superior education were entirely distinct; whereas those who supported the Motion thought they were intimately connected, and that neither set of functions could be properly discharged until both were united. Cases frequently arose in which the regulations of an endowed school required revision, and the authorities who had the duty of framing schemes for endowed schools required to be stimulated in order to induce them to make more rapid progress in their duties. At present that could not be done, because there was no power in that House to do it. The Charity Commissioners were not directly represented in the House, and were hardly amenable to it. Why was it that the Charity Commission was so unpopular? Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works found that the Charitable Trusts Bill met with a dozen blocks? It was because the Charity Commission was, so to speak, hidden away in a dark corner. It was not amenable to public opinion; and there were no means of ascertaining what it did, or what it did not do, or what were the grounds of its action. The only way in which they could deal with the Charity Commission was to place it under a responsible Department, whose Head sat in the House of Commons. And the supervision of endowed schools -the dealing with secondary and superior education generally-was one of the functions which it was most important to intrust to a Minister of Education. They would all remember the point, made long ago, by the then Head of the Department, about the desirability of creating a ladder from which the children should rise from the primary to the middle schools, and so on, to the Mr. Bryce MR. SALT said, he begged to apologize for having committed an irregularity on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. What he wished to say on that occasion was that he was sorry that the proposal for introducing changes in a very important Department of the Government had not emanated from the Government themselves. It was extremely difficult to carry out such changes; and he was bound to say that, having confidence in the Department, and in the Minister connected with it, he did not see that any sufficient reason had been shown for the adoption of any extensive change |