1. ‘The 1944 Act was probably the greatest single advance in our educational history, its provisions showing real breadth of outlook and educational vision’: see Evans, K The Development and Structure of the English Educational System (London: University of London Press, 1975) p 103 Google Scholar. In appearance, the 1944 Act finally vanished in 1996 but various of its provisions live on in consolidated form in the Education Act 1996: see Meredith, P ‘Farewell to the Education Act, 1944’ (1996) 8(3) Education and the Law 189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The extent to which the legacy of the Act's concepts continue to live on in educational debate (sometimes by a process of reaction) is probably beyond calculation.

2. Cornish, W R and de, G Clark, N Law and Society in England, 1750-1950 (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1989) p 480 Google Scholar. Generally on the Act, see Gosden, P H J H Education in the Second World War: A Study in Policy and Administration (London: Methuen, 1976) Pt IIIGoogle Scholar, and Gosden's brief guide, ‘Putting the Act Together’ (1995) 24(3) History of Education 195-207. The present article on the 1944 Act ‘drops anchor’ as a study in legal history and, as such, it may be considered with other historical studies of the problems of statutory law-making. Consider eg Anderson, J Stuart Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law: 1832–1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Rudden, B The New River, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) at eg p 155 Google Scholar; R A Melikan ‘Mr. Attorney General and the Politicians’ 40 The Historical Journal 41-69, particularly at Pt VI; Seville, C Literary Copyright Reform in Early Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Brian Simpson, in his study, Leading Cases in the Common Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), frequently stresses issues associated with the preparation of private Bills in chs 7 and 8. For historical comments on Parliamentary Counsel, see SirIlbert, C Legislative Methods and Forms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1901) ch 5Google Scholar; Bennion, F Bennion on Statute Law (London: Longman, 3rd edn, 1990) ch 2Google Scholar; Sir C Cam ‘The Mechanics of Law-Making’ (1951) Current Legal Problems 122-1 36; F Bowers ‘Victorian Reforms in Legislative Drafting’ (1980) 48 Tidschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 348 (I am grateful to Stephen Hedley for this reference). For lively observations on twentieth-century drafting, see SirKent, H S In on the Act: Memoirs of a Law-Maker (London: Macmillan, 1979)Google Scholar. For articles by Counsel, see Sir W Graham-Harrison ‘An Examination of the Main Criticisms of the Statute Book and of the Possibility of Improvement’ (1935) JSFTL 9; Sir G Ram ‘The Improvement of the Statute Book’ (1951) JSPTL, NS 442; N K Hutton ‘Mechanics of Law Reform’ (1961) 24 MLR 18. Speaking anecdotally, the present writer has often found that lawyers assume that the role of departmental civil servants and Parliamentary Counsel was explored once and for all in SirBunbury, H N (ed) Lloyd George's Ambulance Wagon: Being the Memoirs of William J Braithwaite, 1911-1912 (London: Methuen, 1957)Google Scholar. This book is a sustained study of the creation of National Insurance law in the years just before the First World War and it contains incidentalreferences to a Parliamentary Counsel, Sir Francis Liddell. The book has one gem on drafting: ‘Friday, 17th March, (1911). Liddell had broken down under the strain, and I had to revise his printed drafts… before catching the 5.25 at Charing Cross. Liddell certainly has had a rotten time. For some weeks he had had nothing but a series of inconsistent orders without any real central plan.’ (p 125). But the book as a whole radically fails to explore Counsel's point of view, his use of past files, his concern for numerous legal issues, his alternative commitments and the many problems confronting a Parliamentary Counsel working under the pressure of tight deadlines. It appears to contain not a single reference to Liddell's records. It does not even give the first name by which Liddell was usually known in Whitehall. For a contrasting example, stressing Liddell's creativity, see R Cocks ‘The Mysterious Origin of the Law for Conservation’ (1998) J Planning and Environment Law 203. There is a need for further detailed work on the role of Counsel in the production of legislation. The significance for our general understanding of public law of what Parliamentary Counsel do in the making of law is well beyond the remit of the present historical study. But it is worth noting that M Zander makes suggestive use of Ram's article (mentioned above) in Zander, M The Law-Making Process (London: Butterworths, 4th edn, 1994)Google Scholar: see ch I. Zander is right to express a certain scepticism as to whether public statements about formal roles reflect the substance of what may happen in the preparation of a Bill: seep 13 of Zander's book. For other studies in this area, see eg Meirs, D R and Page, A C Legislation (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1990)Google Scholar and Bell, J and Engle, G Cross: Statutory Interpretation (London: Butterworths, 1995)Google Scholar. When we have enough sustained empirical investigations of what Parliamentary Counsel actually do, it will be possible to link their work to modem debates about public law.

3. W R Cornish and G de N Clark, above n 2, p 480.

4. Ibid.

5. Education Act 1944, s 11.

6. Barnard, H C A History of English Education from 1760 (London: University of London Press, 2nd edn, 1961) p 297 Google Scholar.

7. Cornish and Clark, above n 2, p 479. See also, Education Act 1944, ss 25–30 and Sch 5.

8. Barnard, above n 6, p 300. See also, Education Act 1944, ss 17–22 and Sch 5.

9. Ibid, s 35.

10. Ibid, ss 41–47.

11. Barnard, above n 6, p 300. See also, eg, Education Act 1944, ss 61 and l00(1).

12. Ibid, s 49.

13. Ibid, Pt III. Note the important power to delay the implementation of this reform in s 119.

14. Cornish and Clark, above n 2, p 479.

15. Education Act 1944, under, eg, s 67. For an assessment of the impact of the Act, see Dent, H C The Educational System of England and Wales (London: University of London Press, 1971) at, eg, pp 39–41 Google Scholar.

16. P H J H Gosden Education in the Second World War: A Study in Policy and Administration, above n 2.

17. R G Wallace ‘The Origins and Authorship of the 1944 Act’ (1981) l0(4) History of Education 283-290 at p 283.

18. Jeffereys, K ‘R.A. Butler, The Board of Education and the 1944 Act’ (1984) 69 History 415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Barber, M The Making of the 1944 Education Act (London: Cassell, 1994) p 113 Google Scholar.

20. Gewirtz, S and Ozga, J ‘Partnership, Pluralism and Education Policy: a Reassessment’ (1950) 5 J Education Policy 37–48 at p 41Google Scholar.

21. Ibid, p 47.

22. Butler, R A The Art of the Possible: The Memoirs of Lord Butler (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1971) pp 117, 122Google Scholar. Butler's relationship with Chuter Ede is considered in Boyd, F Richard Austen Butler (London: Salisbury Square. 1972) ch VIGoogle Scholar; Sparrow, G ‘R. A. B.’ Study of Statesman (London: Odhams, 1965) ch VGoogle Scholar; Harris, R Politics Without Prejudice: A Political Appreciation of the Right Hon. R. A. Butler (London: Staples Press, 1956) ch IVGoogle Scholar; and Cosgrave, P R. A. Butler: An English Life (London: Quartet Books, 1981) ch 4Google Scholar.

23. P H J H Gosden, above n 2, p 440.

24. Ibid, p 305.

25. Williams, E T and Palmer, H M (eds) Dictionary of National Biography. 1951–1960, (Oxford: OUP. 1971)Google Scholar contribution by H S Kent, pp 832–833.

26. Sir H Kent In on the Act, Memoirs of a Lawmaker, above n 2, pp 27–30. For Kent's obituary see The Times, 1 January 1999.

27. Dictionary of National Biography, above n 25, p 833.

28. Ibid.

29. P H J H Gosden, above n 15. pp 328–329; M Barber, above n 18, pp 87–96.

30. Parliamentary Counsel Office ‘Education Act 1944’, vol IV, p 205, 24 February 1943, Ram to Holmes.

31. See Cocks, R ‘Modern Law Reform and the Use of Sources at the Public Record Office’ (1995) 16(3) J Legal History 256–280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Kent In on the Act, above n 2, at eg pp 40, 41, 75–76.

33. For an instance of anonymity, see ibid, pp 75–76.

34. See Cooke, Hon Sir Samuel Burgess Ridgway, Kt 1967, in Who Was Who, 1971-1980, (London: A and C Black, 1981).

35. ‘Social Insurance and Allied Services’ Parliamentary Papers, 1942-43 (Cmnd 6404). VI, and see Cornish and Clark, above n 2, pp 464–472.

36. British Library, Chuter-Ede Diaries, ADD 59690-59702, 30 December, 1942.

37. Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, p 195, 18 February, 1943, Holmes to Ram.

38. Chuter-Ede Diaries, above n 36, 25 February, 1943. Ede was working hard on his ideas about drafting at this time. There is an interesting study of Ede in B Bailey ‘James Chuter Ede and the 1944 Education Act’ (1995) 24(3) History of Education 209–220. At the end of the article Bailey refers to Ram's important work but he does not explore the draftsman's point of view or assess the impact of his ideas.

39. Chuter-Ede Diaries, above n 36, 25 February 1943.

40. Ibid, 1 March 1943. Ram's response to this at Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, p 217, was a side-comment in pencil: ‘bosh!’

41. Ibid, 5 March 1943. For Ram's strength of feeling see Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol V, p 225, 2 March 1943. In response to ‘delete advanced secondary school, assisted school, general secondary school and technical school’ he wrote ‘No No!’ . In respect of another dispute over definitions he reacted with ‘only after my funeral’.

42. Chuter-Ede Diaries, above n 36, 8 March 1943.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, p 267, 8 March, 1943. Ram's files record hs own views, his anger at what was being suggested, (see comments above at n 41) and his ultimate defeat on 8 March when Holnies (politely) directed him to follow the conclusive view of Butler. But they do not include the sort of detail Ede provides on this issue. Presumably, Ram saw no need to record his defeat in unhappy detail. Fortunately, for the legal historian trying to come to terms with precisely what happened, the evidence in Ram's records does accord with Ede's analysis despite the strength of feeling with which they opposed each other. However, there is a curious problem in interpreting the first and second drafts of the Bill as recorded in vol I which is Ram's volume of draft Bills. In accordance with what has been said above, these two drafts contain definitions of types of secondary schools. But they are dated respectively 22 and 24 February 1942 rather than 1943. If the dates are correct it would strengthen the interpretation of the Act by R G Wallace, (above n 17), who stresses the importance of the early years of the war. For a number of reasons I think the dates are misprints. I can find no evidence of the draftsman being instructed at that earlier time. The content of the drafts accords with the discussions of early 1943 when Counsel was instructed. There are also appropriate references to the drafts in 1943: see ibid p 203, 24 February 1943, Ram to Holmes; and ibid pp 213–227, 2 March 1943.

46. The side-note for s 7 states: Stages and purposes of statutory system of education. The section states: The statutory system of public education shall be organised in three progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, and further education; and it shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education throughout those stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area. Beyond this, the only distinction at secondary level for most purposes was between county and voluntary schools. For example, under s 9(2): ‘Primary and secondary schools maintained by a local education authority, not being nursery schools or special schools, shall, if established by a local education authority or by a former authority, be known as county schools and, if established otherwise than by such an authority, be known as voluntary schools…’ In other words, under almost all circumstances, local authority secondary schools were simply county schools.

47. Sir H S Kent, above n 2, p 163.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid, p 157.

50. Dictionary of National Biography, above n 25.

51. On debates about public schools at the time see P H J H Gosden, above n 2, ch 14.

52. Public Record Office, Kew, ED 136/382, 23 December 1942; Butler to Major D J F Morton at the Office of the Prime Minister.

53. Public Record Office, Kew, ED 136/389, 31 March, 1943.

54. For these debates see P H J H Gosden, above n 2, ch 14.

55. Ibid, p 350.

56. On the background of policy-makers see ibid, ‘Bibliographical Notes’ at pp 434–442.

57. Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, p 278, 15 March 1943, Ram to Holmes. See, too, Public Record Office, Kew, ED 136/378; Ram to Holmes, 15 March 1943.

58. Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, at eg, 15 March 1943, p 277–281, Ram to Holmes. ‘As I explained the other day I am anxious to get the principal features of this Bill drafted first lest we obscure the main lines of the structure by a mass of detail. Among the most important of the new features is that of the supervision of so-called “private” schools …’

59. See generally ibid pp 278–303.

60. Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, 11 May 1943, p 413, Ram to Dawes.

61. For Simon see Who Was Who? 1951-1960 (London: A and C Black, 1961). For some of his ideas see Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol IV, Holmes to Ram, 8 June 1943, pp 565 and 575.

62. Ibid, 7 June 1943, p 575, draft repy to the Lord Chancellor, copied by Holrnes to Ram. See too 21 June 1943, p 639.

63. Ibid, p 567, 7 June 1943, Simon to the President of the Board.

64. Ibid, pp 654–666, 24 July 1943. Memorandum by the Parliamentary Counsel as to the dates of operation for the Education Bill.

65. Hansard, vol 399, cols 2238-2239, Friday, 12 May 1944: Moelwyn Hughes (Carmarthen).

66. Harris, N Law and Education: Regulation, Consumerism and the Education System (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1993) p 26 Google Scholar.

67. Education Act 1944, s 1l(4).

68. PRO, ED, 136/519, 22 June 1944 and Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol VI, p 2363, 22 June 1944, Ram to Holmes.

69. See questions of Lord Sankey recorded at Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol VI, p 2375, 22 June 1944, Holmes to Ram.

70. Parliamentary Counsel Office, above n 30, vol VI, p 2363,22 June 1944, Ram to Holmes.

71. Ibid, 2373, Holmes to Ram.

72. These were not, of course, the Minister's only powers: (see also s 99). The point is that Ram had now provided one decisive instrument of control. For later discussions about Ministerial powers see ibid 2466–2468.

73. Chuter Ede Diaries, above n 36, 4 May 1943. On 6 May Ede noted that ideas on local government were ‘being submitted to Ram tactfully’ . For Ram's comment see PRO, ED 136/379, 16 February 1944.

74. Public Record Office, Kew, ED 136/467, 6 March 1944.

75. Ibid, 7 March 1944.

76. Ibid, ED 136/489, 5 May 1944.

77. Other examples of Ram's influence include the arrangements for timing the implementaion of various parts of the Bill: see Chuter Ede Diaries, above n 36, 23 July 1943; and his concern about’… the difficulties of attempting to impose Christian faith by statute’: see PRO, ED, 136/519, 22 June 1944.

78. An article on this topic by the present writer will appear in a future edition of the Journal of Legal History.

79. R G Wallace, above n 17.

80. P H J H Gosden, K Jeffreys and M Barber, above at nn 2, 18, and 19 respectively.

81. J Ozga and S Gerwitz, above n 20.

82. Chuter Ede Diaries, above n 36, 10 February 1944.