being referred to the Vice President?-The building grants have been of late years almost entirely disposed of by the Vice President; I have had comparatively little to do with them.

259. Do you mean that each individual case has been submitted to the Vice President?Yes.

260. Can you state what the conditions of the building grant are now ?-They are almost more briefly stated in the Code, I think, than I could state them. The printed forms of instructions and returns that the managers have to make are not in the Code, but the grants for building are set out from Articles 22 to 37.

261. Are those scrupulously adhered to?They are scrupulously adhered to.

262. Is there no refusal of grant to a school which conforms to those conditions?—I should say not.

263. And is there no grant to a school which does not conform to these conditions?—No.

264. Have there been no cases where a grant has been first refused and afterwards accorded?That would be only be on imperfect information in the first instance; but no grant has ever been made, to my knowledge, where those rules have not been complied with, nor has the grant been refused where they have been complied with.

265. Has there been no case of a grant being refused in the first instance, and then, upon the same information, afterwards granted?-It could not have been upon the same state of information; it could only have been that the Committee, upon further consideration, found that the information which they had said had proved, had not proved, a given point, did not warrant that conclusion. It could only have been the minor premise, and not the major, that was in question.

or

266. For instance, if a certain grant was refused on account of the size of a given site, taking that as an instance, is it not possible that the decision might have been entirely altered without any alteration of the size of the site proposed?-A case of this kind might have arisen. I think the Code prescribes 1,200 square yards; supposing that in a town they said, "We have got 900 square yards, but if we are to get the other 300, it will cost us twice as much money;" or, "we cannot get it on any terms; then that question would have been referred to the Committee's architect, to say whether it was vital that they should have those 300 square yards. If he said, "No, I do not think it is, by such and such an arrangement of their buildings, or if, by reducing their number, they propose to reduce the size of the building," that would have been accepted But a case would never have arisen of requiring 1,500 square yards instead of 1,200 square yards.

267. Nor to require 1,200 square yards and to take 1,000 square yards?-We might do so.

268. In the case of such vacillation of decision, who would be responsible for it; that would in each case be referred to the Vice President, would it not?--Yes, now; but I might have decided such cases myself formerly.

269. Have you, of yourself, never altered a decision given by yourself without reference to your superiors?-In a case of that kind before 1856, I think it very likely that on the architect's report I should have passed the case.

270. But how is it since 1856 ?-Since 1856 I

should have taken anything which challenged the general rule to the Vice President.

271. With respect to diminution of grants, is that always done by the Vice President?-The inspector, in his report, says whether he recommends the grant to be paid in full, and if his recommendation is that it should not be paid in full, his report, after being looked to by the Examiner, or by the Assistant Secretary, or by myself, as it passed through our hands, would not necessarily be referred to the Vice President.

272. You would settle the amount of diminution without reference to the Vice President?If the inspector recommended it; and, if looking to his report, it seemed to be primâ facie justi fiable, I should sign that letter without reference to the Vice President.

273. Supposing that the inspector did not recommend it, or only recommended it in a less degree, would you still, if the facts seem to justify such a course on your part, refuse the grant without reference to the Vice President?-I do not think that I should.

274. Have you never done so ?—I may have done so.

275. Do you remember the case at St. Michael's, Coventry, of Mr. Morell, the Roman Catholic inspector, who was dismissed?—Yes.

276. In that case, was not the grant reduced against or without any justifiable report on the inspector's part?-I should not admit that; it was reduced without his recommendation, but his report showed, if I recollect rightly, that the whole of the children, some of whom were 16 or 17 years of age, with the exception of a very few, had been passed under the Standard I.; and on those facts, I believe, that the grant was in the first instance refused.

277. It was refused by you without_reference to the Vice President, was it not?-It was refused by me, I believe, without reference to the Vice President.

278. But did you not afterwards withdraw that refusal?-On further correspondence, a number of statements were made as to the new state of the school, and the refusal was withdrawn or modified; I do not recollect at this moment what was the precise decision, but at any rate some grant was made.

279. And was that done by you without reference to the Vice President? -The later steps were taken after reference both to the Lord President and the Vice President. This particular grant was at first refused, if I recollect rightly, by myself. I should mention that I was in daily communication with the Vice President about the earlier examinations under the Revised Code; I really do not know for certain that I did not take this St. Michael's case to him, but I was in daily communication with him about the class of questions which it raised, and if I had not taken this individual case it was not at all that I alone was directing generally the mode in which such cases was to be treated.

280. But that reduction, when it was made, you communicated to the managers as the decision of "My Lords?"-Yes; every decision is communicated in that form by whomsoever it may be made.

281. Supposing a case to be decided by yourself on your own responsibility, and communicated to the managers as the decision of " My Lords,"

and supposing that the managers protested or remonstrated, do you invariably take the remon strance to the Vice President, or do you sometimes reply that "My Lords adhere to their decision?"-I should consider that I had discretion to give that answer that "My Lords" adhered to the decision, if I felt perfectly certain what the decision would be, and that it was in conformity with precedent.

282. Supposing that the managers remonstrated again and again, would the decision of the case still be conducted by you, and would the complaints never be made to my Lords at all?-I believe that in any case, I should take a continued remonstrance to the Vice President; but, in a case in which I felt no sort of doubt and which had been decided several times over in the same way, in all the earlier stages of the remonstrance, I should make that answer on my own responsibility.

283. And you would give no intimation to the managers that it was you, and not my Lords, who were deciding the matter?-No.

284. Practically, therefore, you would shut them out by their own ignorance from any appeal from your decision to that of my Lords? Of course it will always be in their power to write to the Lord President or the Vice President; and I am, of course, speaking of the exercise of that discretion under which I hold my office, and for exercising which rightly I am responsible; but I can conceive cases in which I should exercise that discretion without referring the matter further, although the point might be a reduction or refusal of the grant, if I felt no doubt of it.

285. And yet, upon the face of your letter, there would be no kind of indication to lead the managers to. believe either that the decision was not that of my Lords, or that a remonstrance coming back from them would not proceed beyond the Secretary's hands?-There would be nothing on the face of the letter to show

that.

286. As a matter of fact, are you not aware that managers in the country generally believe that all decisions which are stated to be made by my Lords are the decisions of my Lords ?—I should not think that any one who is familiar with the dispatch of public business in very large departments could ever imagine that the greater part of it goes to the head of the office.

287. Should you think that country clergymen generally are familiar with the dispatch of public business in very large departments?— No.

288. Then country clergymen generally, and managers of that class, would be under the impression, would they not, that the decision that you sent to them as the decision of my Lords was the decision of my Lords?--Yes, very often, perhaps, that might be so; but, qui facit per alium facit per se, in that sense, it would be, really, the decision of my Lords.

289. If they wrote on the covers direct to the Lord President, thinking that would not be opened at the office, such a remedy would not occur to them, because they would naturally believe that anything like that would come to the eyes of the great Officers of State, of whom the secretary was ostensibly only the instrument ?— Yes, I can conceive that they might form that opinion. I think that the degree in which they would form it would very much depend upon

the knowledge of the world which they possessed.

290. Do you not think that, considering who the managers of schools are, and the sacrifices which they have often made, it would be fair that they should have, in a case so nearly concerning their own interests, a direct appeal from your decision to that of the officers who are responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the office?—I think that, in every instance where the case fairly admitted of doubt, it would be my duty, and I believe that I have always discharged that duty, to carry the case to my superior officers.

291. Still, would it not be a matter wholly for your discretion, and for your judgment, whether the case did admit of the doubt which should give to the managers this species of appeal to which I have referred ?-I think that it must always rest in the judgment of the chief executive officer to exercise that discretion, as regards a large number of cases, where the current business of the office is large.

292. And of course for the decision which is so made by you, the responsibility which the heads of the departments are said to have to Parliament would be simply fictitious and illusive? No, I think not; because Parliament would call upon them, and upon them only. If I have taken the responsibility of deciding cases, without coming to them, I am answerable to them, and on their proving that I have decided alone, I should, of course, if they were dissatisfied with my decision, remain open to any punishment or censure which they might think right under the circumstances to inflict. I do not think that their responsibility is rendered at all fictitious, by any act which a permanent officer may have done in that way.

293. At all events there might be very conceivably a strong difference of opinion between the managers on the one side and yourself on the other, as to whether a decision refusing them a grant was a right interpretation of the Minutes which have been laid before Parliament; might not that be the case?—Yes.

294. And if it was the case, would it not be decided against them entirely by you, without the intervention of any other officer whatever, if you had no doubt upon the subject?-My freedom from doubt ought to be expressed in this way: if I had no doubt as to the mode in which my chiefs would decide it.

295. But at all events they would be entirely in your hands, and would be entirely subject to the soundness of the certainty which you entertained upon the intentions and wishes of your chiefs? Again, I cannot admit that that conclusion. They have many remedies; they have their own Members of Parliament, and they can write directly to the heads of the office. Supposing that they took none of those means whatever, and that they accepted my letters, so far they would be in my hands.

296. You state that they could write directly to the heads of the office, but I think that you answered the Honourable Member for Bradford, that according to the headings of your letter, they are required to write to you?-Yes, to the Secretary.

297. Has it never happened that letters have been addressed to your office, complaining of acts of administration, and that those letters have not been

been answered, and that then letters of complaint have been addressed to the Lord President or to the Vice President?-Yes.

298. Coming to a subject on the merits of which I wish to express no opinion, nor do I ask you to give any, I wish to ask whether the conscience clause has ever been imposed upon any applicant for a grant without the knowledge and sanction of the Vice President?-Certainly not at any recent period.

299. Has it been done since 1856?-The only case of which I can think at all, as to which I doubt, is a case called Llanelly, which was a peculiar one. In the earlier stages of that case, when it first came on, a conscience clause was suggested, I believe, by myself. But afterwards the case was repeatedly before the Lord and Vice President.

300. Was that without any reference to the Vice President? I think that in the earlier stage it was without any reference to the Vice President.

301. Conscience clauses are frequently imposed, are they not, without any direct reference to the Lord President?-The Committee do not admit that they impose conscience clauses.

302. It is a suggestion, then, as a condition, without which grants will not be made?-Those are constantly decided by the Vice President.

303. Without any concurrence of the Lord President?-Without the concurrence of the Lord President in each particular case, but with a general concurrence as to the principle on which any particular case has been decided.

304. Has any recorded decision of the Lord President, or any Minute of the Committee of Council been made, by which this suggestion of the condition of the conscience clause is authorised?-There has been a correspondence with the National Society, and several deputations by leading members of the National Society, and those are recorded. That correspondence has been presented to Parliament.

305. But no general rule as to the cases in which a suggestion of a conscience clause, as a condition on which a grant is to be made, has been recorded or even laid down? Yes; the rule has been laid down that in those parishes where one school only is admissible the conscience clause might be the condition of the grants.

306. The definition of the word admissible is left to the authorities of the office in each case, is it not? There is an outside definition in that correspondence with the National Society, that where the population requires a school for as many as 150 children, there ought to be one school and not two.

307. Do you mean where they require no more than 150 children?-Where, they require no

more.

308. But that has not been assumed as a regular rule of the office; it is a mere suggestion in the course of correspondence, is it not?-It has been the rule and practice.

309. Has it been placed in any form in which it can be conveyed as the rule of the office to the managers or the intending managers of schools? -I should say that in Article 22, upon the subject of building, where the statement is that the new school must suit (I think it is) the religious opinions of the families which are relied upon for

supplying scholars, the application of that rule in the parishes which admit of one school only has rested with the Committee of Council, subject to that general declaration in the correspondence with the National Society, that, where there were children not more in number than 150, it would be treated as a parish where one school only was required.

310. Has that limit, of 150, been taken with the consent of the Lord President?-That letter to the National Society was written with his consent, certainly.

311. Has it been taken as the general rule of the office, with the consent of the Lord President?-I believe so.

312. But it has not been submitted to my Lords?-It does not exist in the form of a Minute.

313. Do you mean to say that the principle of a conscience clause to be applied to schools of limited numbers is contained in these words, "That the religious denomination of the new school is suitable for the families relied upon for supplying scholars?"-The way in which that question affects the building ground is this: an application is made to build a National school, in which religious instruction and attendance at church may be made compulsory, in a parish which admits of one school only; but which parish contains a certain number of Dissenters. That is a state of facts upon which the Vice President has to decide; and, in a certain number of cases he comes to the conclusion that a school of that character is not suitable to the families relied upon for supplying scholars, inasmuch as a certain number of them do not profess that religion, instruction in which may be made compulsory in the school.

314. I do not wish to express the slightest opinion upon the policy of it; but will you state how you interpreted the words, "relied upon;" is that relied upon by the Council and not by the promoters of the school?-The promoters state, when they bring an application before the Council for how many children they mean to build, and in support of that calculation they state what the population of the parish is, and the number of families belonging to the labouring class who profess that religion which will be taught in the school; for instance, Church of England, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, or whatever it may be.

315. Then are the Committee to understand your rule to be that unless there are 150 Church of England scholars to be relied upon, you do not make a grant? That is not the rule; the 150 grant?-That scholars merely have reference to the question of whether or not there is room for another school. In a parish of 400 people you would not want a school for 150, but for 50 or 60 at the outside.

316. Would you make a grant for 50 or 60?— Not for a National school, if the parish contained a considerable number of Dissenters.

317. In the system of suggesting conscience clauses, do you go upon any definite rule or do you go upon the inspiration of the moment; can you state to the Committee either any number of scholars which is required, or any proportion which the number of scholars bears to the religious divisions of the population which would be your guide in making those obligatory suggestions?-I think that it is very much a matter of

R. W.W. discretion with the Vice President as to what Lingen, Esq. minority he will consider sufficient to require consideration in building a national school. If 21 March there are Dissenters in the parish, he will con1865. sider whether they are too few for notice to be taken of them, or whether he will take notice of them. The late Vice President usually considered, I think, that one-sixth was the minimum.

318. But there is no fixed rule?—There is no fixed rule.

319. And it is not even referred in each case to the Lord President?-It is decided, I believe, generally by the Vice President.

320. You were' under examination before the Committee of last year, and it will be in your memory that there are certain classes of reports which are not laid before Parliament, which are subject to modifications, we will say, by the office, with or without the consent of the inspectors; are those referred in each case to the Vice President, or are they settled by the Secretary? -I must take exception to that admission. I do not admit that those reports in the office are modified in any other sense than by being referred back to the inspector or by ascertaining in some way that he concurs in the modification which is made in them.

321. At all events, the modification is made with your own hand, it is not made with his; is that modification made by yourself or by the Vice President, or by my Lords?-That might depend very much upon circumstances. I do not think, indeed I am certain, that I should now alter the report of any inspector whatever, not a single word of it, without sending it back to him, and I think that I should before I did even that, if it was more than the merest verbal alteration, refer it to the Vice President.

322. Referring again to the Coventry case; in that case you drew your pen through a certain number of words in Mr. Morell's report as to the efficiency of a school to which you objected, and you put this question in the margin: "Do you prefer that it should be altered thus, or that it should be submitted to the Committee in Council?" what did you mean by the words, "Committee in Council," in that case ?-I meant the Vice President, if those were the words which I used.

323. Did you ever refer an inspector's report to the Committee itself?-No, I had no means of referring it to the Committee; it does not rest with me to call the Committee.

324. But you made that erasure in that case without referring it to what you call the Committee of Council?-I made it previously to sending it to the inspector.

325. And it was upon that report which you so desired him to alter, that you, in the first instance, refused the grant?-Yes, I believe it

was.

326. Do you remember a Scotch case to which your attention was also called last year, namely, the case of Cockburn's Path, where, if I remember rightly, a report bearing upon the character of a schoolmaster, into whose character inspection has been made under an Act of Parliament, was altered without the consent of the inspector, and the matter was never brought even to your knowledge at all?—The case was this: Under the 19th section of the Schoolmasters' Act in Scotland, certain functions are given to inspectors of schools to report upon masters who are inefficient.

When the first case occurred under that Act the Vice President, Mr. Lowe, settled the practice under it to be this: that the inspector was not to pronounce any decision upon the case, that he was carefully to abstain from that, but that he was to place such facts as fell within his official experience before the Heritors' Board with whom the decision rested. Acting under these instructions, the inspector who went to this particular school wrote a report, the latter part of which appeared to the officer through whose hands it passed to be a judgment upon the facts of the case, and not to be a mere report upon those facts for the information of the heritors. Consequently, the first part of that report went down to the heritors, and not the second, and they wrote to the inspector, or in some way the inspector ascertained, that part only of his report had gone down to the heritors, and then he wrote to the office. As soon as I saw the paper, I did not agree with the officer who had exercised this discretion, and I thought that the whole report ought to have been sent in, and it was thereupon communicated. It did not appear to me to be a judgment on what the heritors were to do, but to be upon the facts of the case. But that was merely a difference of opinion, as to the instructions which were given for dealing with that class of cases.

327. Was that done in the name of my Lords? -Yes; every letter that leaves the office is written in the name of my Lords.

328. So that, when a letter appears to be from my Lords, there is not even a guarantee that it has been seen by you?-No; if it is not signed by me, the probability is that I have not seen that letter.

329. And it may be merely the decision of some subordinate of your own in the office ?-It may be the decision of some subordinate in the office.

330. In one of your answers you stated that certain details were disposed of which never came before you at all; will you state to the Committee what sort of details those are?—The Council Office is organised in this manner: above the clerks, who are employed merely in copying and drafting letters, there are a certain number of officers called examiners; the letters of the day are divided among those officers, and they make upon them the Minutes which the cases seem to require; perhaps three out of four of them require only the despatch of a certain printed form to be minuted upon them; in other cases letters may have to be written; the cases about which those officers doubt are referred to the two assistant secretaries, and if they feel any doubt about them they send them on to me; the whole of each day's letters being minuted in this way by the examiners, and their Minutes being made into fair drafts of letters come with the original papers before the two assistant secretaries; they, as a rule, sign the day's letters, and they send on to me any about which they have any doubt, and in the same way I take on any letters about which I have any doubt to the Vice President; once a week, instead of the assistant secretaries signing the letters, I sign the whole of them myself, in order that I may, as far as I can, observe the working of the office; that is the daily practice.

331. Do those matters which are decided by subordinate officers ever concern the reduction or the refusal of grants, either building or annual ?Of building grants, certainly not the refusal; and

in the case of annual grants, no subordinate officer against the recommendation of the inspector would venture to reduce them.

332. But would he do so on the inspector's recommendation ?-He would.

333. Would he decide the amount of reduction? --That is on the inspector's recommendation.

334. Is the inspector's recommendation never vague?-The report would be referred back to him if it were so, but reductions are never indefinite; they always express one-tenth or twotenths or whatever it may be under the 52d article of the Code.

335. The practice of the office is, that if an inspector recommends a reduction, that reduction is made by the inferior officials of the Department without reference even to you ?--In most cases, I think that that would be so.

336. Mr. Clay.] Is not the Secretary the proper officer to address in most of our public depart ments? I believe that that is so.

337. In writing to the Treasury or to the Admiralty, would you, from your official knowledge, address your letter to the Secretary?—Yes.

66

66

338. Have you sufficient knowledge of the practice of the Treasury to know whether, when a letter issues from that Department beginning, My Lords have heard with much regret," or My Lords see no reason for altering their decision," it is very doubtful whether my Lords have ever met and discussed that case, or ever heard of it at all; do you know whether that is so, or whether the decision is practically the answer of either the permanent Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary, or even one of the permanent heads of the Departments to whom that particular business is referred?-I believe that, in most instances, it is the answer of the head of the Department to whom the business is referred.

339. And that is very generally the case in almost all our public offices, is it not?-I believe it be so.

340. Do the Treasury letters go out with the heading which your letters have, directing the reply to be addressed to the Secretary ?-In one or two offices I think they have adopted the same plan as we have done, of writing at the head of the letters to whom the answers should be sent, but I am not sure whether they have adopted it at the Treasury. I think that they have done so at the Civil Service Commission. At the Poor Law Board they used to write inside the flap of the envelope.

341. Would that, in your opinion, be a convenient reform to adopt in all the offices?--I think so.

342. With regard to this practice of matters appearing on the face of the letters, as having been discussed by the Boards which have never sat upon them, is that, in your belief, rendered necessary by the immense amount of business which passes through our great Departments?-I believe it to be quite necessary.

343. Did I rightly understand you to state that when there is a formal meeting of the Committee of Council, it is for the discussion of some broad question of policy?--Yes.

344. It either being wholly or chiefly for that purpose, does it appear to you that such broad questions of policy may be as well discussed, or perhaps discussed in the most satisfactory manner by men whose minds are accustomed to deal with weighty matters, but which are not incumbered

with a familiar and daily acquaintance with the detail and routine of the office?-I think so. Parliamentary experience is wanted as to the general chance of success for any measure, and upon that point statesmen in the position of the Members of the Committee of Council can give a far better opinion than any permanent officer.

345. Would it, in your opinion, be the natural bias of a mind dealing constantly with the details and routine of an office to attach more importance than really belongs to it to the additional trouble which a change might throw upon the office, so that unfamiliarity with that sort of routine would certainly not disqualify certainly not disqualify a man from being a judge of a broad question of policy ?-Not from being a judge of a broad question of policy.

346. You have stated that occasionally the Lord President took the Minutes to the Cabinet; may I ask whether you meant by that, that he took them to the Cabinet for the Cabinet, as a Cabinet, to decide upon the policy of those Minutes, or as a convenient way of showing them to his colleagues in the Council, and consulting them upon the subject?-I have known both to happen; sometimes he would take them to consult the Government upon them, sometimes as a convenient mode of consulting his colleagues of the Committee.

347. I understood you to state that the supplementary rules were not always submitted to the Lord President, but only such as were of great importance?-Yes.

348. Who is the judge of their great importance?-That would be, in the first instance, the permanent executive officer, the Secretary. I should like to add, in explanation, that the question of reference, in the first instance, would be the act of the permanent officer, but that the reference to the Lord President from the President would be the act of the Vice President.

349. Does not it appear to you, as a matter of practice, that it would be more convenient and satisfactory that there should be a rule that either all or none of such questions as the supplementary rules (which are really frequently of great importance) should be submitted to the Lord President, so that you could have no doubt as to where you are to look for the responsibility in the matter? Yes, I think that a rule of that sort would be a good one.

350. Mr. Bruce.] With respect to the conscience clause, are you aware whether the correspondence that was laid before Parliament was submitted to the Committee of Council for their opinion as to the expediency of acting upon the rules laid down in that correspondence?—Yes, I believe it was.

351. Was that done by myself?-By yourself. 352. With respect to the supplementary rules, had no such supplementary rule as the 6th, which fixes the standards of examination, been issued, it would have been in the power of the Privy Council, would it not, whenever they were dissatisfied with the state of instruction in the school, to have deprived that school of half its grant, and that without any given rule for their decision ?--Yes.

353. That is under Rule 52 A, I think?Yes.

354. You have been asked as to the practice of other Departments; are you not aware, in fact, from your general official knowledge, that