after Easter, not to carry its appeal against the Cockerton judgment to the House of Lords, which involved a practical acknowledgment of the illegality of much of the existing expenditure on higher science teaching in day schools and all teaching of adults in night schools, rendered some legislation in 1901 on the subject of education an absolute necessity. It was on May 7 that Sir J. Gorst introduced the Government Education Bill. Having regard to the fate which, within two months, fell upon this measure, it is not necessary to give here more than a brief indication of the leading features of the bill as they were explained by the Vice-President of the Council. He said that its object was to establish in every part of England and Wales a local authority which, it was hoped, would ultimately supervise education of every kind within its area. That authority would be the County or Borough Council acting through a statutory committee. The constitution of the committees would be largely regulated by schemes which the various councils would be invited to draw up severally for themselves, absolute uniformity not being aimed at. The schemes would have to be approved by the Board of Education, which would see that all interests were consulted, and perhaps direct local inquiries to be held so that any persons concerned might have an opportunity of stating their views. Moreover, the schemes would be submitted to Parliament before ratification. County and Borough Councils would be allowed and encouraged to combine for the formation of joint educational areas. A majority of the members of each committee would have to be members of the council or councils appointing it; and it was also provided that some members of the committee should be chosen from outside the councils-the idea being, apparently, to secure a proportion of educational experts. Women would be eligible to serve. The committee would not itself have power to raise money, but only to spend the sums placed at its disposal by the council. These would be derived from the "beer money" at present allowed for technical education--the committees taking over the powers of the existing technical instruction committees -and from a rate, not exceeding 2d., which the council would be authorised to levy for the purposes of the act. School Boards and School Board rates were not touched, though the framers of the measure contemplated the possibility of the boards' powers being at some future time transferred to the new authorities. The committees would be empowered to spend the funds allotted them in the promotion of education generally-excepting elementary education.

With a view to meeting the temporary emergency, the bill provided, as Sir J. Gorst explained, that the new authorities might empower School Boards to continue to carry on any school which was affected by the Cockerton judgment, subject to such conditions as might be agreed upon between the authorities and the boards, or, in the event of their disagreement, on

In the

conditions prescribed by the Board of Education. interval between the passing of the act and the creation of the local authority the County Councils would be enabled to make the payments necessary for the maintenance of such schools. The bill repealed the Technical Instruction Acts, as no longer necessary.

In the short debate which ensued on Sir J. Gorst's statement, Mr. Bryce (Aberdeen, S.) described the Government scheme as gigantic and complicated, feared that it would cause friction between the new authorities and the School Boards, and objected to the repeal of the Technical Instruction Acts, adding, however, that the Opposition were prepared to consider the Ministerial proposals in a fair spirit, so long as nothing was done to encourage the sectarian controversy which had so greatly retarded progress in the past.

Dr. Macnamara (Camberwell, N.) commented unfavourably on the exclusion of primary schools from the scheme, and advocated a single, popularly elected local authority to superintend education of all grades, and Mr. Yoxall (Nottingham, W.), of the National Union of Teachers, denounced the Ministerial proposals as "inept." Sir R. Jebb (Cambridge University), on the other hand, thought that the bill deserved a welcome from all persons interested in national education, as embodying the principle of a single local authority, and preparing the way for its ultimate adoption.

At

This discussion was on the whole fairly typical of the line of comment encountered by the Government bill. It did not excite enthusiasm in any quarter, as it did not attempt to bring about any general settlement of the education problem in all its branches, and, in particular, did not in any way deal with the evils of the competition between the board schools, with their freedom to draw on the rates, and the voluntary schools, with no such elasticity of resource. It was also felt that with regard to secondary education the terms were not sufficiently clear and imperative in regard to the duties to be undertaken by the new education authorities, and imposed a very parsimonious limitation on the means which were to be at their disposal. the same time, speaking broadly, persons specially interested in secondary education, and also those interested in voluntary schools, were inclined to make the best of the bill, being not without hope perhaps of extending its scope in committee, and regarding it, even as it stood, as sound in principle and offering a foundation for a thorough and satisfactory reorganisation of our educational system, to be completed by subsequent legislation. On the other hand, the attitude of persons attached to the School Board system was from the first distinctly unfriendly. They read in the bill, and in the attitude of its framers, a very decided intention, at as early a date as might be found convenient, to put the whole educational field, locally, not, as they desired, under an ad hoc authority-or, in other words, the old School Board writ

large but under an authority constituted in a quite different method. They also resented the proposed partial subjection to the supervisory discretion of such an authority of School Board action in regard to the classes and pupils affected by the Cockerton judgment. The attitude of the Liberal party towards the bill was not definitely declared. At the Bradford meeting (May 15) of the Council of the National Liberal Federation a resolution was passed embodying the hostile attitude just mentioned as common among the friends of the School Board system. At a Cambridge Liberal dinner a few days earlier (May 11) Mr. Asquith had spoken of the bill in rather contemptuous terms, as calling into existence "a number of shadowy and undefined bodies with vague and indefinite duties"; but there was reason to doubt whether the Liberal leaders arrived at any accord as to the manner in which the bill should be treated in Parliament.

On May 9, in Committee of Supply in the Commons, there was discussed the report of the weighty and representative select committee appointed, as already recorded (p. 70), to consider the provision to be made for the Sovereign and Royal Family. The committee, who were unanimous, except for Mr. Labouchere, recommended that the Civil List be fixed as follows:

The King, of course, retained the income of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is paid into the Privy Purse, raising its whole amount to about 170,000l. The amount of 110,000l. followed the precedent of the sum voted for the Privy Purse of King William IV. and Queen Adelaide, that voted for the Privy Purse of Queen Victoria having been 60,000l. On the Privy Purse of their present Majesties would be charged the cost-perhaps some 4,000l. or 5,000l., judging by recent records-other than the salaries, of the Department of the Mistress of the Robes, hitherto included in the Household Expenses class of the Civil List. Certain reductions were proposed in the salaries of different officers of the household, that of the Master of the Horse, for instance, being cut down from 2,500l. to 2,000l., and most places of which the Occupants change with the Ministry being likewise diminished in value. The committee did not think it advisable that the Mastership of the Buckhounds should be continued, nor did they think it necessary that the Royal hunt should be maintained. They felt that it was for the Sovereign to decide whether and in what form encouragement should be given by his Majesty to any particular national sport; and they did not consider it desirable to impose on his Majesty an obligation to do so by devoting a portion of the Civil List specially to that

object. They therefore struck out items amounting to 6,2007., which were assigned in the late reign to this purpose, recommending that the Master of the Buckhounds should cease to hold office as soon as arrangements could be made for terminating the Royal hunt.

The sum allotted by the committee for the expenses of the Royal household came to 193,000l. (divided among the departments of the Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, and Master of the Horse, to which were assigned 107,500l., 44,500l., and 41,000l. respectively). This total compared with the amount of 172,500l. which had been allotted to the expenses of the household under the late reign, but which had latterly proved far from sufficient, the deficiency, to the amount of some 170,000l. in thirteen years, being only made good out of savings which had accrued in the earlier years of Queen Victoria's widowhood. The total augmentation proposed in the annual sum available for household expenses, after relieving that class. (3) of the Civil List of certain charges previously borne by it, was apparently about 43,000l. The committee felt it necessary that the resources of the Royal household should be thus increased, "in order to ensure that no restriction should be placed upon the hospitality of the Sovereign, and that his comfort should not be interfered with."

Under the proposals of the committee, the Queen would receive 70,000l. a year in the event of her surviving his Majesty. The Duke of Cornwall was to have 20,000l. a year in addition to the revenues of his duchy, say 80,000l. in all; the Duchess 10,000l., or 30,000l. during widowhood. A grant of 18,000l. a year was to be made for the King's daughters during their joint lives, diminishing by 6,000l. with each death, but the allocation as regarded the different Princesses was left to the King. The sum of 25,000l. per annum would be allowed for pensions to retired members of her late Majesty's household.

There were certain small adjustments of charge between the Civil List and the ordinary Civil Service Estimates.

The financial recommendations of the committee (coming into immediate operation) were summarised as follows:

543,000

For the purpose of comparing this figure with the corre-
sponding charge in the late reign, viz.

471,000

There should be added to the latter the sum transferred from
Votes to the Civil List, viz.

10,000

481,000

And there should be deducted the amount of the charges of
which it is proposed to relieve the Civil List, viz.

5,000

476,000

£

The net increase proposed is therefore
Falling ultimately, when the pension charge with respect to
the Servants of the late Queen of

67,000

25,000

(No. 5, above) disappears, to

42,000

In the course of an excellent speech, at the close of which he moved a resolution embodying the committee's proposals, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took occasion to observe that in consequence of Queen Victoria's great wisdom and noble character the monarchy had gained greatly in popularity during her reign, and that thus the question of making adequate provision for the Sovereign and the Royal Family aroused hardly any difference of opinion. Dealing with the question of the expenses of the Royal household, Sir M. Hicks-Beach pointed out that the sum of 172,500l. received for the maintenance of the household and for travelling and other expenses by the late Queen had been insufficient; a large contribution having had to be made from the Privy Purse to meet the deficiency. Such a contribution was possible because the Queen lived for so many years in comparative seclusion, during which there were substantial savings. The King, however, had no personal fortune, the private property of her late Majesty having been left to her younger children. For these reasons, and because the household expenses had necessarily increased largely since the beginning of the late reign, it had been thought right, besides relieving the household charge of certain items which he specified, to propose that the King should receive under this head of expenditure 193,000l. a year. His Majesty, he observed, had directed that a full investigation should be made into the management of the household with a view to remedying any abuses that might be discovered. Referring to the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, which would be enjoyed by the HeirApparent, Sir M. Hicks-Beach said that they had been greatly augmented since the King succeeded to them, owing to the excellent way in which the estates had been administered under his Majesty's own superintendence. He mentioned as a fact of public interest that, as the leases of the houses on the London estate fell in, new houses were being built and let directly to tenants, no new building leases being granted. This the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded as a noble example to the owners of property. In commending the committee's proposals, as embodying a just and reasonable settlement, Sir M. Hicks-Beach said that the amounts voted for the Civil List and for the members of the Royal Family who were not included in it, with the 25,000l. proposed to be placed on the consolidated Fund for pensions, would come to 543,000l. a year, as against 476,000l. devoted to similar purposes in the late reign, or an increase of 67,000l. He pointed out that this expenditure did not fall directly on the taxpayer, as the King had abandoned his claim to the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which amounted in 1900 to 452,000l., and which would probably in