council. In theory all matters of purely local concern are managed by the borough councils, and matters common to London as a whole are managed by the county council. It is needless to say that in practice this division is not strictly observed.

As regards the borough councils created by the metropolitan-government act of 1899, it should be observed that they are the direct successors of the administrative vestries and district boards, just as these were the descendants of the numerous parochial and ecclesiastical bodies that existed prior to the passing of the metropolis-management act of 1855.

All the powers, duties, properties, and liabilities of the old authorities other than those relating to church affairs have been taken over by the borough councils. a

The London educational bill was introduced into the House of Commons April 7 by Sir William Anson, who explained its purposes substantially as follows:

The London county council the authority. The object of this bill is to place the London county council to a great extent in the position in which councils are placed under the act of 1902. The distinct, the cardinal feature of the bill is to make education a part of our municipal institutions; and in explaining the mode in which we attacked this problem, having regard to the conditions of London, I propose to go through briefly and in outline the changes which it will be necessary to make. The London county council is the local education authority for London. In Part II of the act the London county council will have the rating powers of the county boroughs. The boroughs can not rate themselves, with the exception of Woolwich. So far as Part II of the act is concerned the change is slight, and the London county council, with the great resources which are present in London, with the technical instruction money, with the large contributions which it receives from parochial charities and other sources, will have no difficulty, I hope, in extending the work of technical-instruction committees to meet the requirements of London as far as secondary education is concerned. Now I come to Part III. The local education authority, as in the act of last session, takes the place of the school board and the technical-education committee. We make no change in its general powers, but there is a change in the matter of management. The voluntary schools will remain in precisely the same relation to the local authority as they do under the act of 1902.

In the matter of council schools (former board schools) we propose to attempt a certain amount of centralization. The school-board managers have had physically no administrative power whatever, although they have exercised an admirable influence in visiting schools, in establishing friendly relations with the teacher, with the children, and with the parents of the children, and in that way have very

a The city of London is an independent corporation which is officially joined to Outer London for some of the purposes intrusted to the county council. The city and boroughs, their populations and ratable values (1901), are as follows:

The above table and the particulars with respect to the metropolitan administration are derived chiefly from the London Manual for 1902.

bFor the chief provisions of this act see "Brief conspectus of the English system of elementary education," pp. 229-231.

largely promoted the good attendance of the children and the easy working of the school. We want to avoid this centralization, we want to avoid a condition of things in which not a pane of glass falls to the ground but it must be made known to the central office on the Thames embankment, with all the delay necessary to such a gradual process of getting repairs attended to.

Borough councils to manage the board schools.-Therefore we propose to give the management of the council schools to the borough councils. The borough councils will be subject to the general directions of the local education authority, who will have the control and general direction of education. We propose to give to the borough councils the general management subject to this, and we propose to give them the appointment and the dismissal of the teacher, the custody of buildings, and, where a new school is to be provided, subject to the determination by the local authority of the area to be provided for and the amount to be expended, the selection of the site. The borough councils will have the power to exercise their management through committees, consisting wholly or partly of persons who are not members of the councils, and in this way we shall retain the assistance of the existing managers who have done such useful work in the past. The borough councils will form their committee to deal with their respective schools or group of schools, but the persons who manage the schools will be responsible to the ratepayers. I hope we shall thus get, through the agency of the committee, the continued assistance of persons who have worked on the management of the schools in the past, while we shall have the central control and general direction of the local education authority. In that way we hope to diminish the existing centralization of the school-board system and to excite local interest and patriotism. We hope also that in this way we shall secure that the management of the schools will be as efficient as ever it was under the school board, and that there shall be more local connection with the area the school represents and more interest created among the ratepayers. There are two other matters to which I ought to refer before I pass from this subject and which deserve the attention of the House. It was frequently asked in our debates last session what was the definition of "management?" Management is no doubt a difficult thing to define. Certain things are obviously control, while others are as obviously management. There may be a border line between the two which may lead to differences of opinion; and we propose that if such differences of opinion arise and there is a dispute between the local education authority and the borough council, a report shall be made to the board of education who will determine it, and who, I think, are quite capable of determining what is management and what is control in the particular circumstances of the case. There is yet another important matter. It is possible that management may not always be properly conducted. It is conceivable that a council or a committee of a council may be negligent in the discharge of its duties in respect to management. We make provision, if that is the case, that the local education authority should come in and, with the consent of the board of education, assume the management and take care that its own directions are carried into effect. The constitution of the London education committee.-I now come to a more important part of the subject-the scheme for the constitution of the committees. There again we are impressed with the importance of associating with the great authority all interested in the conduct of the educational work of London and of providing the county council with the fullest assistance in the conduct of its business. There are thus various elements to be taken into account-the boroughs, the interest which I will allude to presently, the experience of the school board, and the county council itself. Now, it can not be denied that the boroughs have taken some interest, considerable interest, both in the work of the county council and in the work of the education of London. There are, I believe, about one-fifth of the London county council who are also members of borough councils, and the technical instruction committee of the county council has, I think, seven members of borough councils upon it. Of the school board, again, one-fifth of the members are members of borough councils. The borough councils desire to be represented on this committee, and we propose that each borough council should send one member, Westminister and the city of London sending two. Then I come to the various other interests. There are persons who should be parties to the educational administration of London whose advice should be valuable to the London county council, but who would not be there naturally as members of borough councils or as members of the county council. In the first place we must find room for women upon the education committee. The number of women on the London school board is now, I think, as large as eleven, though it has been, I believe, as low as two. There ought certainly to be women who will represent all types of education on this education committee. Then there are the voluntary schools, who may wish to be represented on the education authority. That desire,

I may say, has been fully and generously recognized by councils in the country in the formation of their committees, so far as they have gone. There are, then, the great educational bodies in London, the University of London, and the various types of public schools and separate institutions, and, lastly, there are the great contributories to London education, such as the trustees of parochial charities and the city guilds. We therefore think that not less than 25 places should be reserved on the committee for persons of these descriptions, the experts, the women, the voluntary schools' representatives, and the great contributories I have referred to. Then it is desirable that, at any rate for some years, the county council should have the benefit of some of the experience of the London school board, and we propose with regard to these two bodies-the experts and the London school board-that, as regards the experts, the London county council shall form a scheme setting out the number in which each interest shall be represented and the mode in which the representation shall be obtained for the purpose of appointing these 25 persons; and we propose that it should also elect five members of the existing school board to hold office on this committee for the first five years. Dr. MACNAMARA. Will they form part of the 25?

Sir W. ANSON. No; these five will be in addition. There will always be 25 experts, and for five years there will be five members of the existing school board. Then we propose to ask the London county council to contribute 36 members to the committee. For the first five years, then, this body will number 97. The question is whether it is too large or too small. I am somewhat fortified in this connection by looking at the report of the secondary education commission, who laid it down that for the management of the secondary education of London a body of 42 would be necessary. I then add the number of the school board, 55, and so reach the number of 97; and as the the work of the committee will be considerably larger than the work of the school board and will include secondary education, I come to the conclusion that out of these 97 persons the committee can not spare a single man or woman, having regard to the work they have to do. Then as to the popular character of the committee. Of that body 72 members will be the result of election by the people. The borough councilors, the county councilors, and the members of the school board will all owe their places on the committee to election by the people of London.

Mr. LOUCH. Indirectly.

Sir W. ANSON. Not directly for the purposes of education. As to the representation the London county council will have on the committee, I think that will not be said to be unimportant, seeing that 66 members of the committee will be appointed in one way or another by the London county council. I will not trouble the house with the detailed amendments to the act of 1902 that will be neccessary— they are small and of a drafting character-to adapt this bill to London. There is only one other matter in which we depart from the tenor of the act, and that is in the appointed day. The borough council elections take place in November and the county council elections in March. We could hardly press for the operation of this scheme between the borough council elections and the county council election. We therefore propose to fix in the act May 1, 1904, as the appointed day, with the power which exists in the act of last year to postpone the appointed day if circumstances make it desirable. I hope I have sufficiently indicated the lines of the bill to enable the House to give me leave to bring it in. I hope, also, I have indicated the policy, the educational policy of His Majesty's Government, as shown in the act of last year and the bill I am now bringing in. The force of that policy was sometimes lost sight of in our debates last session. We spent much time in the discussion of religious teaching and the domestic economy of voluntary schools, and it was somewhat overlooked that there underlics those discussions a great educational purpose-namely, the coordination of all forms of education under one authority and the linking up of the education of the country with our municipal institutions. We aim at these great objects-to place all forms of education under one authority, to bring all forms of education within the reach of all, and to make education a part of municipal duty. We are nearing. I hope, the completion of this policy. I hope that honorable members' cheers will be justified by the result and that the education of the country will be no longer the result of the sporadic and variable efforts of school boards and voluntary associations and technical instruction committees, of bodies of trustees and technical instruction committees supported by private enterprise, but that it will be a part of our municipal life. I believe that time is approaching, and that then we shall find that the care for the training of the children and the youth of this country, in body as well as in mind, has struck its root deep into our municipal institutions and become a part of the very life of the people. (Cited from The Schoolmaster, April 11, 1903. p. 720.)

THE TEXT OF THE MEASURE, AS SUBMITTED.

Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. The education act, 1902 (in this act referred to as the principal act), shall, so far as applicable, and subject to modifications made by this act, apply to London. 2. The education committee of the local education authority shall be constituted in manner provided by the first schedule to this act.

3. (1) The council of each metropolitan borough shall be the managers of all public elementary schools provided by the local education authority within their borough, and subject to any general directions given by the local education authority and to the power of that authority to determine the number, qualifications, and salaries of teachers, shall exercise and perform the powers and duties of management as respects those schools (including the power of appointing and dismissing teachers in those schools and the custody of the buildings).

If any question arises whether any power may be exercised or any duty is to be performed by the council of a metropolitan borough as a matter of management under this section, that question shall be determined by the board of education, and if at any time the local education authority satisfy the board of education that the council of any metropolitan borough have failed properly to exercise or perform their powers and duties under this section, the board may, by order, enable the local education authority to take over from the council those powers and duties for such time and subject to such conditions or exceptions as the board determine.

(2) The site of any new public elementary school to be provided by the local education authority being a site within the area, which in the opinion of the local education authority will be served by the new school, shall (subject to compliance with such conditions as may be made by that authority with respect to the amount available for the purchase of the site) be selected by the council of the metropolitan borough in which the area is situated, or, if that area is comprised in more than one metropolitan borough, by the councils of those boroughs jointly.

(3) The council of a metropolitan borough may, if they think fit, exercise any of their powers under this section, and also any powers which may be delegated to them by the local education authority under the principal act, or which they have as minor local authority under that act, through a committee or committees appointed by them, consisting either wholly or partly of members of the council.

4. (1) The modifications of the principal act set out in the second schedule to this act shall have effect for the purposes of this act.

(2) The expression “metropolitan borough" in this act shall include the city, and the expression “council of a metropolitan borough" shall include the common council.

5. (1) This act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be the 1st day of May, 1904, or such other day, not being more than twelve months later, as the board of education may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this act.

(2) In addition to the repeals effected by the principal act, the acts mentioned in the third schedule to this act shall be repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.

(3) This act may be cited as the education (London) act, 1903, and the education acts, 1870 to 1902, and this act may be cited as the education acts, 1870 to 1903.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

CONSTITUTION OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

1. The education committee shall as ordinarily constituted consist of 92 members, of whom 36 shall be persons who are members of the local education authority, appointed by that authority; 31 shall be persons who are members of the councils of metropolitan boroughs, appointed by those councils, the common council and the council of the city of Westminster each appointing 2 members, and each of the other metropolitan boroughs appointing 1 member; and 25 shall be appointed by the local education authority in accordance with a scheme made by that authority and approved by the board of education.

The scheme shall provide for the appointment of those members in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection 3 of section 17 of the principal act, and subsections 6 and 7 of section 17 and section 21 of that act (which relate to the making of schemes) shall apply with respect to any such scheme as they apply with respect to a scheme for the constitution of the whole education committee. 2. On the first education committee there shall be 5 supernumerary members, selected by the local education authority from among the members of the London school beard; but those supernumerary members shall cease to hold office on the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the constitution of the first education committee, and any vacancy in their number occurring by death, resignation, or otherwise shall not be filled up.

The two remaining schedules of the bill not being pertinent to the present consideration, are here omitted.

The chief objections to the bill were very forcibly presented in the House of Commons by Doctor Macnamara and Mr. Bryce in the speeches here cited:

Doctor MACNAMARA said that the single question with which he proposed to deal was that of the constitution of the education authority, a subject on which a number of his honorable friends opposite had told him that they had an absolutely open mind. To them he especially directed his arguments. He repeated what he said last year-that there was nothing essentially antidemocratic in giving the full and complete control of education to a municipal council wherever that was physically possible, as it might be, say, in a town of 10,000 people; but in the case of the larger urban areas educational work was so large and complicated that this was not physically possible. The Government attempted it last year, and they had at once to call in a large number of outside persons not responsible to the ratepayers. At a very early stage of the experiment this further thing happened: It was found that the members of a town council could not give the time which the work of the education committee required, and that the work fell largely into the hands of the other members of the committee.

The stupendousness of the London problem.—As a member of the London school board he wished to draw attention to the stupendous work of which that board had charge. The board consisted of 55 members, and it had 7 standing committees and 32 subcommittees. Last year the members were called to no fewer than 706 meetings of one sort or another. The board had control of over 1,400 schoolboard departments; it had 536,000 children to educate; it had 13,519 teachers to supervise. In addition, the board had 10 special schools for the blind, 18 for the deaf, 60 for the mentally defective, 4 for the physically defective, 2 industrial schools, 3 day industrial schools, 2 truant schools, and 12 pupil teachers' centers. It was obvious that the 55 members of the board could not give direct attention to all that work. They had been obliged to call into being an immense scheme of local management. They had 251 groups of local managers, comprising over 2.000 persons, who were in direct touch with the schools. Then there was the work of the voluntary schools, with 1,500 departments and 220,000 children, which had to be taken over, as well as duties in connection with higher education. Altogether the education of London involved 2,000 separate institutions, 20,000 teachers, the instruction of 1,000,000 pupils, and a public expenditure of four millions of money a year. That was a piece of work as big as the whole of the present work of the London county council, and equal, or very nearly equal, to the education of Scotland, and three times the education of Wales.

If the proposal to make the county council the education authority were genuine, it was a proposal to double its work. But Lord Salisbury not long ago said that the county council had already too much to do, and that its members were suffering from megalomania. If the Government proposed to double the work of the council, who were the megalomaniacs? Fourteen members of the council had been detached to join the water board; it was proposed to detach 8 under the port of London bill; 6 were detached for the Thames conservancy, and 2 for the Lee conservancy. Now 36 more were to be detached. There was a total of 66, or more than half of the number of elected members of the county council. In fact, if this proposal were real, the Government would, in killing the school board, be also wrecking the county council. If, on the other hand, the proposal were not real, the scheme was to set up a kind of water board, protected from public censure and public criticism because it happened to have over its portals the magic letters L. C. C. He suggested that the 36 county councilors, having all their other duties to attend to, would not be able to attend to the work of the education

ED 1903-16