204 BOARD OF EDUCATION 
takes on that advice,” and pointed out that unless 
the choice of subjects for consultation were left to 
the Minister it would be necessary to frame a 
comprehensive list of subjects. The view was 
expressed by Archbishop Temple that “ the Consul- 
tative Committee ought never to become instead 
of a consultative committee a regulative committee 
with independent powers.” The general idea under- 
lying the constitution of the Committee was 
obviously that expressed by the Bryce Commission 
of 1895: “How may the State, i.e. the Minister 
who here impersonates it, be best informed and aided 
in making education itself, as distinguished from 
the machinery needed for its organised existance, 
more satisfactory and efficient without having his 
authority in any way restricted or his responsibility 
lessened.”®* The recommendation of the Head- 
masters’ Conference that “the Central Authority 
should consist of a statutory commission composed 
to a great extent of persons experienced in educa- 
tional matters, independent of any other Depart- 
ment, and responsible to Parliament through a 
Minister of the Crown,” received no favour from 
the Bryce Commission. 
The relation of advisory committees to Govern- 
ment Departments is a matter of considerable 
importance, as was recognised by the Machinery of 
Government Committee of 1918, who commented 
favourably on the Board’s practice in this respect. 
“So long as advisory bodies are not permitted to 
impair the full responsibility of Ministers to Parlia- 
* Vol. I, p. 108. 
+ Report. Cmd. 9230, pp. 11-12, 56-57.