without the aid of debating societies, to solve the conundrum that now is insoluble to the First Lord. Moved to resolve that, looking to the possibility of our being at some future time at war with one or more European Powers, it would not be wise to trust to the Navy alone for security against invasion; and the more SO as the general power and effectiveness of the Navy, the world over, would be pro tunto thus lessened by the necessity of retaining in our home waters a sufficient Naval force for the defence of the United Kingdom. (The Earl of Wemyss.) *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will do me the justice of believing that my previous reply was not meant to convey any want of respect to him personally, but I do think that the very peculiar nature of the questions he asked justified the rather peculiar nature of my reply. Now, what was the noble Lord's question? Broadly, it was whether the Navy alone could guarantee the safety of the United Kingdom against invasion. Observe, my Lords, if I had answered "Yes" to that question, the noble Lord would have got up at once and said, "Do you mean that you require no Army at all, no regular troops, no Militia, no Yeomanry, no Volunteers?" Of course I was not prepared to say that we could dispense with all our land forces. On the other hand, if I had said "No," then hereafter it would be given in evidence that the Navy was not the main and proper source for the security and safety of these Islands. THE EARL OF WEMYSS: No, no! *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I prefer, my Lords, to stand by the broad principle which I indicated in my brief reply. I said that I thought it would be a bad day for this country when it ceases to rely on the Navy as the main source of national strength, and I added that the function of the Navy in war would be to follow the ships of the enemy wherever they were to be foun 1. The noble Earl, if I may say so, has shown what an imperfect conception he The Earl of Wemyss. has of naval strategy in his suggestion that in any circumstances the duty of the Navy in war would be to perform a sort of sentry-go up and down the coasts of these islands. The duty of the Navy will be in all circumstances to find the ships of the enemy and to defeat them. That mere bald statement only opens the door to a great number of questions which the noble Earl might ask me. He might say, Does it not depend on what ships of the enemy are left in the Channel or in home waters. and what ships of ours have followed them elsewhere? In what circumstances is a raid feasible or not?" These are all questions open to the widest field of speculation and to many divergent views. Another point mooted in discussions on this subject is: "At what point would a raid become serious to the nation?" I am not prepared to deal with any of these questions in your Lordships' House, because I do not think that they belong to the class of questions which lend themselves to useful debate. I do not say-no Minister in his senses ever would say that this country does not require an Army; but I do say that we cannot too closely study the proper coordination of the Army with the Navy, or determine too accurately the proper limits of the sphere of action of the Army. As the noble Earl has quoted the preamble of the Army Act, I sum up my position by quoting the preamble of the Naval Discipline Act, which states that "It is the Navy upon which, next after God, the safety of this country doth mainly depend." I cannot see what useful purpose or public service is going to be fulfilled either by affirming or by rejecting the proposition of the noble Lord; and therefore I beg to move the previous question. LORD NEWTON: After the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am more perplexed than ever at the opposition offered to the Motion of the noble Earl. I can only account for it on the hypothesis that my noble friend is looked upon as a kind of political Ishmael, and that it is the duty of the Government and the Opposition to stamp on any Resolution which he brings forward. The Motion appears to me to contain the veriest platitude Government and the First Lord of the and truism-[The Marquess of SALISBURY: Admiralty should disclose minutely the “Hear, hear!"]—and that being so, what strategy which they would adopt in the is the harm of accepting it? If the case of invasion or war. I thoroughly noble Earl on the Cross Benches were to agree with what the First Lord of the Adstate in a Motion that two and two miralty has said on the subject, and I make four, I believe the Government and shall certainly vote for the previous the Opposition would consider it neces- question if the noble Earl on the Cross sary to marshal their forces against him. Benches perseveres with his Motion. I maintain that it is impossible to preserve consistency by voting against the Resolution. The First Lord of the Admiralty may say what he pleases, but opposition to this Resolution amounts to this: that you practically state that the Navy is the sole line of defence we need consider, and that the Army and the Auxiliary forces are absolutely unnecessary institutions. *EARL SPENCER: I should not have risen to take part in this debate but for the speech we have just heard from Lord Newton. I cannot accept the view which the noble Lord has stated as to the meaning of the Amendment embodying the previous question. By accepting the previous question we are not voting against the principle of the Resolution. What the Amendment means is-and I feel this very strongly-that your Lordships' House *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: To move the previous question on such a vital question as this, which requires the simple answer "Yes" or "No," is ridiculous. My object is to prevent the public mind from being diverted from the real issue-namely, that we should have land forces of the proper kind. In the name of the people and of common sense, I ask the Government whether or not they look upon the Navy alone as being sufficient for the defence of the country. If only to show up the action of the Government in moving the previous question, I shall certainly divide. The question being stated, the previous question was put, whether the said question shall be now put. On question, resolved in the negative. is not the place where His Majesty's (Contents, 6; not-contents, 53.) CONTENTS. Wellington, D. Crofton, L. Newton, L. [Teller] | Stewart of Garlies (E. Gal- | Wymess, L. (E. Weymss) loway). [Teller]. Wimborne L. TECHNICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEES. *LORD REAY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord President of the Council (1) whether, having regard to the fact that The EVENING SCHOOLS-EXPENDITURE OF regard to my first question, the figure to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention is that of the contribution to evening schools from the rates for the year 1899-1900, viz., £150,000. Whitehall grant for that year was nearly £110,000. I need not take that into under the new Regulations will, I preaccount, as the Parliamentary grant sume, not materially differ from it. But the question arises whether, if you remove these schools from an authority which has unlimited power of levying rates, the authority to which you transfer the schools has adequate rating power or other resources at its disposal, or whether you intend to make up the difference out of fees. the funds in the hands of Technical Education Committees, arising from Imperial or local sources or from fees, and available for the purposes of secondary education, are limited in amount, and are already, to a large extent, appropriated to the support of existing Educational Institutions, he is of opinion that such Technical Education Committees are in a position to meet the increased expenditure in regard to evening schools which the Board of Education permits them to incur under Clause VII. of the Regulations for Evening Schools; (2) whether School Boards have not, under the Elementary Education Acts, a statutory right to provide and maintain a public elementary school for children at any hour which the School Board may, in its discretion, fix; (3) whether School Boards have not, under the Education Code (1890) Act, the right, if they see fit, to open a public elementary school for children in the evening, in which the principal part of the instruction there need not be elementary; (4) whether School Boards have not, under Section 8 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, a statutory right to open an evening school without requiring any fee; (5) as it is one of the conditions laid down in Section 7 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, for the conduct of a public elementary school, that it "shall be conducted in accordance with the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant," and as such conditions must, under Section 97 of the same Act, be those contained in the Minutes of the Education Department for the time being, whether the Board of Education will issue a Minute stating the conditions under which public elementary evening schools may be conducted by School Boards, and the terms on which such schools may obtain a share of the Parliamentary grant. The questions which I have ventured to put to the noble Duke relate only to elementary education, as defined by the Elementary Education Acts, and interpreted by the recent judgment given in evening schools by School Boards. With With regard to the question as to what rates are available, the only rate, so far as I can see, that is available is the penny rate of the Technical Instruction Act, with the additional penny rate in certain areas, and that will only be available where Clause 7 of the new Regulations is put in operation. Clause 7 is permissive. The local authorities may, or they may not, accept responsibility for instruction in evening schools. There is another source-namely, the £900,000 of the "whisky" money which is at present devoted to technical instruction by County Councils; but that sum, or the greater part of it, is already appropriated, and we may assume that a County Council which undertook these duties under Clause 7 would find it very difficult to divert any portion of that money for the purpose of maintaining evening schools. As to fees, of 332,042 scholars on the registers of Board Schools in 1899-1900, 198,108 paid no fees, 29,291 paid less than 1d., 81,827 paid less than 3d., 17,869 6d. and over. paid less than 6d., and only 4,947 paid It is quite clear that, if you largely increase the fees, the scholars for whom the schools were intended will be largely reduced. I cannot conceive that it can be the object of the Board of Education to deprive the class of scholars who now frequent these schools from receiving further instruction as a necessary sequel to the education they have received in the day schools, and thereby reduce the beneficial results of day school instruction. Questions 2 and 3 need very little comment. I have not been able to find in any of the Elementary Education | there has been hitherto, stating the conActs any clause which limits the right of ditions under which public elementary School Boards only to give education in evening schools may be conducted by the day time, and clearly the object of School Boards, they cannot exercise their the Education Code Act of 1890 was to statutory right, and by the omission of give School Boards the power of giving an administrative Order the law is in evening schools education of which rendered inoperative. In the Bill which the principal part need not be elementary. has been introduced, the gu llotine is In the recent decision of the Judges there applied to School Boards and their evenis nothing which curtails the right of ing schools, but meanwhile they might School Boards to give elementary instruc- have been allowed to remain in animated mation in evening schools. Clause IV. of suspense. the new Regulations states that "The Board will not in general recognise schools in which no fees are charged, but they will be prepared, in certain cases, to approve the remission of fees to individual students." I cannot reconcile this with Section 8 of the Elementary Education Act of 1891, which states that "Nothing in Section 17 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, shall prevent a School Board from admitting scholars to any school provided by the Board without requiring any fee." If there could be any doubt about the interpretation of that section it would, I think, be dispelled by a reference to the debate in this House on the Report stage of that Bill. On the 23rd of July, 1891, the then Bishop of London proposed an Amendment that, after the words " any school" the words, "not being an evening school," should be inserted. This was the answer of Lord Cranbrook to that Amendment "I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. It seems to me the evening schools are out of our purview, and the managers deal with those schools as they think proper. The voluntary schools have full power, if they think proper, to make their eveuing schools free, and there is nothing to interfere with them. Take the case of Birmingham. Birmingham will gain very largely by the fee grants, having had low school fees. Therefore, if they think proper to employ some of the funds they will have in their hands for that purpose, they will be at liberty to do so." Therefore, it is quite clear that in the year 1891 the Government contemplated that School Boards should have the power of establishing evening schools, and the right of not requiring any fee. Therefore, I would ask the noble Duke what are the reasons for withdrawing those powers, and for laying down that School Boards can only give education in day schools. If there is no Minute issued by the Board of Education, as THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE) : In reply to the first question of the noble Lord, he is quite accurate in assuming, as I understand him to assume, that it is intended that a 1 local expenditure-by which I mean expenditure on evening schools other than that which is provided by Government grants-shall in future be provided by local authorities under the Technical Instruction Acts. The noble Lord, I understand, asks whether the funds at the disposal of the local authorities will be sufficient for that purpose. In reply to that question I have to state that the Technical Instruction Acts have by no existing local authorities under the means exhausted the funds at their disposal which are applicable to the however, that the responsibility for the purposes of education. It is probable, whole of the evening school work, as contemplated by the regulations of the Board of Education for last year and this year, may involve them in expenditure which their present sources are unable to meet. The Bill now before Parliament provides additional, and, we believe, ample, resources for all parts of the country except London. The London County Council have, however, only just begun to draw | upon the rate leviable under the Technical Instruction Acts. If the resources of the London County Council appear to be inadequate to carry on the evening school work, some means will be found for enabling it to be carried on until London has been dealt with by the special legislation which has been promised in another place. an re I am afraid I must decline to follow the noble Lord into the remainder of the Questions that he has put upon the Paper, and I must point out to him that Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent it is not part of my duty to lay down to a number of Bills. (See page 1.) what are the statutory rights of School Boards under the Elementary Education Acts. The duty of the Board of Education is, subject to those Acts and the Regulations approved by Parliament, to administer the Parliamentary grants to elementary and other schools. In consequence of the decision in the Cockerton case, the Board of Education were advised last year that they could no longer legally continue to make grants for evening schools provided or maintained by School Boards for persons other than children or for instruction other than elementary; but I have no reason to doubt that evening schools giving elementary instruction to children such as appear to be indicated in the question. might, so far as any statutory require ments are concerned, be provided by School Boards and receive grants from the Board of Education. Accordingly. the Minute of July 3rd, 1901, provided, in Clause 21, for grants being paid to such schools; but so little advantage was taken of the provision that the Board of Education were convinced that public elementary schools of this type were unnecessary, and discontinued the pro-, vision in this year's evening schools Regulations. The present policy of the Board of Education is that evening schools, the great majority of which are intended for persons older than children, shall be provided and maintained by the local authorities for secondary education and receive grants under the Regulations of the Board relating to secondary edu cation. House adjourned at twenty HOUSE OF COMMONS. The House met at Three of the clock. ROYAL ASSENT. COMMISSION. Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH). Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz. : Metropolitan Railway Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time. PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING case of the following Bills, originating Council Rhondda Urban District MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. WADHURST GAS BILL. Lords Amendments considered and agreed to. DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [LORDS]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time. DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD As amended, to be considered tomorrow. GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS As amended, considered; The House went; and being returned― added. Clauses |