§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ Amendments made.
§ Clause 3 (Department may employ Officers in Scotland).
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council and himself had been carefully considering whether Clause 3 might be omitted, and they had come to the conclusion that it might. He now moved, therefore, the omission of that clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clause 6 (Area of a parish and area of a burgh).
§ MR. M'LAREN moved, in page 4, to leave out from "limits," in line 27, to "within," in line 28. The hon. Member said that as the clause stood the power of levying rates for schools was confined to the ancient limits of the burghs, and did not include the police boundaries, which in many cases extended much further, and his object was to remedy that defect.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, to leave out from the word "limits," to the word "within," in line 28.—(Mr. M'Laren.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEassented to the Amendment.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he understood that police boundaries did not exist in the case of all burghs.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who had had great experience in such matters, had informed him that such was the case, and he had not since had any opportunity of verifying the statement.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
169§ Clause 58 (Removal of teachers appointed before the passing of this Act).
§
THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 23, at end of clause, add—
It shall be the duty of the sheriff of the county, or one of his substitutes, to attend any meeting of a School Board for a public inquiry under the provisions of this Clause, if requested so to do by the board or by the teacher to whom the inquiry relates, by a letter addressed to the sheriff clerk not less than six days before the first meeting for such inquiry; and the sheriff or sheriff substitute so attending may administer the oaths to the witnesses, and shall take a note of the evidence, and give all proper assistance to the board in conducting the inquiry, but shall have no voice in the judgment. It shall be lawful for any sheriff to nominate a fit and proper person to act as his substitute at any such meeting, and such person shall be paid out of the school fund a fee, to be fixed by the School Board, not exceeding five pounds five shillings for the whole inquiry. The proceedings of a board and the judgment or order thereof shall not be questioned on the ground that a sheriff or sheriff's substitute has attended and acted under this clause without request in writing as herein provided, or upon any objection to the date or form of the request.
§ MR. ORR EWINGsaid, he did not think it desirable that a gentleman in the position of the sheriff should be called upon to perform such duties as were contemplated in the Amendment.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEobserved, that that part of the clause was permissive, and he believed that, generally speaking, the county business of the sheriff and the sheriff's substitute would necessitate the nomination of special substitute.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. M'LAREN moved, in page 25, sub-section 5, line 7, after "Board," leave out to end of sub-section. The hon. Member, after remarking that there had already been a division on that question, said, he believed that the appointment of a referee to settle disputes between the masters and the school boards in the case of the higher class of schools, would lead to all sorts of discord and jealousy. The school boards would in many cases consist of men equal in point of intellect and standing to the London School Board, and he thought it was hardly to be tolerated that a board of 15 gentlemen should be controlled by one person, to be appointed by the Lord Advocate. There was no provision of that kind in the English Education Act.
170§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no objection to omit the words objected to.
§ MR. CRAUFURDwas sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had agreed to the Amendment. The school boards would not contribute anything towards the sustenance of the higher class of schools, and he did not see on what ground they could be made paramount with regard to the fees of the teachers. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would leave the clause as it stood.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had yielded to the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on the subject. The school boards would be composed of persons who were interested in the education of the district, and who would be prepared to devote their time and attention to the matter. The interests of higher education might suffer if the fees were fixed too high, and he thought it was, on the whole, desirable to place the same confidence in the school boards in that case as would be reposed in them in other matters.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 66 (Conscience Clause).
§ MR. M'LAREN moved, in page 28, line 11, leave out "or," and insert "and." The hon. Member said people out-of-doors had interpreted the clause as meaning, with the word "or," that though it would be competent to the teacher to open school meeting with prayer, and to close it with the singing of a hymn or with praying again, that could not be done at both periods, and he proposed the Amendment for the purpose of removing any doubt on the point.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 11, to leave out the word "or," and insert the word "and,"—(Mr. M'Laren,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Bill."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the object of the clause was that there should be a religious observance both at the commencement and at the end of the secular instruction; but as the matter had been considered doubtful, he would accept the Amendment.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he concurred with his right hon. and learned Friend 171 the Lord Advocate in the construction which he had put upon the language of the clause—namely, that the-word "or" did not prevent religious instruction being taken at the beginning or at the end of the secular teaching. He feared that the introduction of the word "and," in substitution for the word "or" in the clause, would make prayer appear compulsory, both at the beginning and end; and he therefore preferred to retain the word "or," which did not prevent prayer being used either at the beginning or end.
§ MR. ORR EWINGremarked that he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), because the power to give religious instruction at the beginning and end of the secular teaching was necessary in schools attended by children upon the half-time system. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not listen to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Craufurd).
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought that, as the clause stood, the matter was quite clear. If, however, there was any doubt on the subject, the only way in which that doubt could be removed was to introduce words to the effect that prayer might be used either before or after the secular instruction, or at both periods.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had no objection to the thing being made alternative; but he thought that the substitution of the word "and" for "or" would only make the matter more doubtful than before. They might say, "either at the beginning or at the end or at both periods," the matter being left entirely optional.
§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIRtrusted that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, if he accepted the Amendment, would make it very distinctive, by some additional words, that he did not mean at the beginning "or" at the end, because it was introducing quite a novelty into Scotch teaching. In the great bulk of Scotch schools it was not at the beginning or at the end, but it was usually at the beginning. He did not know what the law signified; but common sense would signify that if they introduced the word "and," it meant both at the beginning and the end, and that was not at all what many hon. Members on his side of the House would 172 like to see made compulsory by law. It was certainly not in accordance with the practice of Scotch teaching in schools at present. He therefore trusted that his right hon. and learned Friend, if he accepted the Amendment, would make it very clear that this was an alternative, and not to be considered to apply to both periods.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he might be permitted to explain. He should certainly have objeced to the Amendment if he thought for a moment that it would, or by any possible construction could, have the effect of rendering instruction in religion or religious observances imperative, either at the beginning or at the end, or at both periods. He should have resisted altogether if the Amendment were capable of that construction, and although it might savour of a legal argument, he hoped the House would bear with him for a single moment while he pointed out how it was impossible that that construction could be put upon the words. They occurred in an exception from a prohibition. The prohibition was, "and no instruction in religious subjects shall be given"——
§ MR. CANDLISHrose to Order. The Lord Advocate had already addressed the House on this clause.
§ MR. SPEAKERAt this stage of the Bill no hon. Member is by the Rules of the House allowed to speak a second time; but, generally speaking, the House is inclined to be indulgent to hon. Members.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no wish to trespass unreasonably upon the time of the House. The explanation he intended to give would not occupy a moment. The words of the prohibition were—
No religious observance shall take place, except before the commencement or after the termination of the elementary secular instruction of the day.That was a mere exception from the prohibition, and contained nothing in the nature of an injunction.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought that the object of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would be attained if the words of the English Act were adopted. The words were—
Religious instruction shall be given either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and the end of such meeting.173 These words would, he thought, meet the view of the hon. Member, as they would give power to the school boards to exercise a discretion in the matter.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he could not withdraw his Amendment in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), because what he suggested had been already discussed and negatived.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 156: Majority 112.
§ Word "and" inserted.
§ MR. ANDERSONproposed in line 12, after the word "day," to insert "or either of."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained that the clause, with the words proposed, would not be grammatical. He thought the clause was very well as it stood with the Amendment which had just been agreed to; but if they were to have any further amendment of this matter, he did not himself see any grammatical way of effecting the object in view, except by adding after the word "termination" these words—"or before the commencement, or after the termination of the secular instruction of the day." If it was in accordance with the general view of the House that these words conveyed the matter more distinctly, he should have no objection to their insertion.
§ MR. ANDERSONbegged to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the learned Lord Advocate.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEthen proposed in line 11, after the word "termination," to insert the words "or before the commencement, or after the termination."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Words inserted.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, the next Amendment which stood in his name he should merely indicate, and then leave it in the hands of the Lord Advocate. It had been already stated strongly in that House that to compel children at the expense of the board to attend school for eight years—namely, from 5 until 13 years of age—was quite inconsistent with the habits of the poorer classes, and his Amendment was that 174 the attendance at school should begin at 6 and end at 12, so far as compulsory power was taken in the Bill. Let them be at school as much longer as they pleased; but let them not push compulsion beyond the years he had mentioned. A very large proportion of the children of Scotland left school at 12; and he knew more than one hon. Member of that House who left school at that age. He would not argue the question, but would content himself with proposing in page 28, line 18, to leave out "five" and "thirteen," and insert "six" and "twelve."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 28, line 18, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "six,"—(Mr. M'Laren,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment. The House had already affirmed that 13 was the proper school age, and it would be the duty of the parents in the first instance, and of the boards in the second, to see that children attended school up to 13 under ordinary circumstances. He had only one word to say in answer to his hon. Friend's suggestion, and that was that compulsion terminated upon a certificate being shown that a child could read and write, and had a small knowledge of arithmetic.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 68 (Defaulting parents may be proceeded against by the procurator fiscal on a certificate from the board).
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had two Amendments on this clause, the object of which was to introduce a cheaper form of legal procedure. The first Amendment was to enable the board to appoint a person other than the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute a defaulting parent, and the second was to enable the prosecution to be laid before two justices or the sheriff of the county. The hon. Member observed that Procurators Fiscal were "few and far between," while justices of the peace were as plentiful as blackbirds, and concluded by moving, in page 29, line 9, after "resides," to insert "or other person appointed by the board."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not disposed to offer any objection to 175 a proposal intended to save expense, and therefore he was inclined to assent to the Amendment in so far as another person appointed by the board was concerned—that was to say, the board was to be at liberty to appoint a proper person other than the Procurator Fiscal to prosecute under this clause. But he was inclined to be more tenacious of the sheriff's jurisdiction, of whom they had enough in Scotland to perform this duty, which, particularly at the commencement, would be of a somewhat difficult and delicate character.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he was satisfied with the concession made by the Lord Advocate, and would not press his other Amendment with regard to the justices of the peace.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SCOURFIELD moved, in page 29, line 16, to leave out "three" and insert "six," the object being to allow legal proceedings to be repeated against defaulting parents at intervals of not less than six months, instead of three.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 16, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "six,"—(Mr. Scourfield,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. CRAUFURDopposed the Amendment.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEalso intimated that he could not assent to the proposed change.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
MR. F. S. POWELL moved, in page 29, line 17, after the word "fund" to insert the words—
No requirement in this section contained shall be held or construed to apply to any child employed in any kind of labour, and receiving instruction in conformity with the provisions of the Factory Acts, or of any Act in force at the time being for regulating the education of children employed in labour or in any industrial occupation above ground or in mines.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was copied, with slight alteration, from the by-laws used in England.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRUCEunderstood the object of the clause was to exempt children from 176 the operation of the Act as to attendance at school who were already receiving instruction on the half-time system, under the Factory Act, from the age of 6 to 13; but it also applied to children working in mines where the age was 12 years. He questioned whether exemption from the operation of the Act should be provided in the latter case. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. TREVELYANstrongly objected to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman. This Bill represented the Scotch opinion as regards the obligation of parents towards children in 1872, and he did not think the measure should be hampered by provisions which represented the English feeling with regard to education in years now long gone by. The provisions of the Factory Acts were not meant to represent the maximum of education and exemption from labour—on the contrary, they represented the minimum; and it was important, now that school boards were being established over the whole of Scotland, that they should not be burdened with any conditions except those which were imposed by their own feelings as to the amount of education the children should have. It was most important that this Bill in its entirety should represent the feeling of Scotland. The addition of the words proposed simply brought them back to other times, and to the opinion of another country, and it was therefore desirable that they should not be inserted.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERwas surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman use the expression "another country." That the country commonly called England should be spoken of in that House as "another country," must surely gladden the heart of every ardent "Home Ruler."
§ MR. ANDERSONasked if the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment was aware that the half-time system had taken no hold in Scotland, and that the teaching under it was of the worst possible description? Having had experience of it, he would not be surprised if the school boards thought the education under it was of so insufficient a character that they would not take it as an excuse under the provisions of the Bill.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment. The purpose of the hon. Gentleman, as 177 he understood it, was to make it reasonably certain that the parents of a child who was employed, and was at the same time receiving instruction in conformity with the provisions of the Factory Act, should not be prosecuted as a parent who had grossly neglected his duty to his child. If the words proposed, or any others, were necessary to the attainment of that object, he should not oppose the Amendment, but he trusted his hon Friend would find that it was not so. It was declared by Clause 67 that it should be the duty of every parent to provide elementary education for his children, and if he was unable, from poverty, to discharge that duty, then it was put upon the school board to provide instruction for him, and upon the parochial board to pay for it. Clause 68 provided for the case of defaulting parents who were neglecting their duty, and neglecting it grossly and without reasonable excuse. The hon. Member would perceive that it was only after the school board had called the defaulting parent before them and given him an opportunity of explaining why his children were not at school, and being dissatisfied with his explanation, that they were to certify in writing that he had been and was grossly and without reasonable excuse failing in the discharge of his duty in providing elementary education for his children, and that prosecution was to take place. No school board would, in the first instance, certify that a parent was grossly neglecting his duty to provide elementary education for his children who was providing them employment and instruction under an Act of Parliament; or, if they did so certify, there was no sheriff who would convict in such a case. Any such procedure would be an outrage on common sense. He therefore trusted the hon. Member would not press this Amendment.
§ MR. ORR EWINGrecommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 69 (Method of procedure).
§ MR. M'LAREN moved an Amendment reducing the amount of expenses in which offending parents are proposed to be mulcted from 40s. to 5s. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was cruel to require a poor man to pay 40s. for the 178 expenses of the prosecution against him, and pointed out that under the English Bill the penalty for the breach of any by-law should not exceed 5s.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 23, to leave out the word "forty," and insert the word "five,"—(Mr. M'Laren,)—instead thereof.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEreminded the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the fine of 5s. provided for in the English Bill could be imposed every 24 hours; whereas the fine of 40s. sanctioned by the Bill now before the House could only be imposed once in three months. The sum of 40s. was the maximum, and there might be cases in which the expenses of witnesses amounted to that sum; but he thought that in the majority of cases the expenses would be trifling.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsupported the Amendment, and hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would divide the House.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would remember that they were dealing with Scotland. The penalty had been fixed at 5s. in England, because public opinion in England was not prepared to go higher, and 40s. had been determined upon in Scotland, because they were prepared to go higher. They had made up their minds in Scotland that every child should be educated.
§ MR. ORR EWINGremarked that law was very cheap in Scotland, and that the Amendment might conveniently be adopted.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he had seen a good deal of sheriffs law, and had no respect for it. As the proposal of the Government placed large power in the hands of the sheriffs, he should support the Amendment if his hon. Friend went to a division.
§ MR. CANDLISHurged the Government to accept the Amendment. The Act would work more smoothly with moderate and lenient penalties, and though the English Act did not limit the frequency of prosecutions, they could not reasonably be instituted oftener than once in three months.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was a certain point beyond which if they reduced the scope of the penal clauses they weakened law. If compulsory education were introduced at all it must be 179 backed by such provisions as would make it effectual. He thought 5s. too low a limit; but there was no limit to the frequency with which it might be exacted, as it might be renewed from day to day. There was a provision in the Scotch Act which might make the maximum infliction reach the sum of 8s. four times in the year. In the English Act the amount was limited to 5s.; but there was no reason why it should not be imposed 100 or even 200 times in the course of a year, and the possible severity of the one case was an equivalent for the higher figure in the other. If the hon. Member moved that the amount should be reduced to 5s. in the case of Scotland, in common consistency he must move that the limit of three months which had been fixed should also be further limited.
§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, when the interval between which the summons could take place was reduced from six to three months, the amount of the fine was reduced from £5 to 40s.; and in the same way he now thought it might be desirable to make a similar reduction as regarded the 40s. expenses. He ventured to suggest that the sum should be fixed at 10s.
§ MR. ANDERSONthought 40s. too high and 5s. too low. If 5s. was fixed, it might prove insufficient, and the school board would have to pay the difference, and thus be discouraged in taking action. He thought 20s. would be a fair sum.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, if Her Majesty's Government would accept 20s., he had no objection to withdraw his proposal.
§ Question, "That the word 'forty' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the word 'five' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and negatived.
§ Amendment proposed, to insert the word "twenty,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—instead thereof.
§ Question, "That the word 'twenty' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
§ SIR JOHN HAYpointed out that Clause 71 enabled certain children who were very proficient to be exempted from attendance under the Inspector's certificate; but there was another class of children who ought to be exempted from attendance also, but who were not so exempted; he meant children who 180 were not of strong intellect or of strong bodily frame. It would be improper to compel such children to attend school, and he therefore suggested that words should be inserted in the clause providing that any child should be exempted from attendance who obtained a medical certificate of inability to attend.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that Clause 68 would satisfactorily meet the case put by the hon. and gallant Baronet.
§ Clause 72 (Copy of list of defaulting parents, &c.)
§ MR. F. S. POWELL moved to leave out the clause. Clause 68 enacted that a list of parents who were in default should be made. But this clause went further. It enacted that that list, in which the names of parents were to be placed without their being heard, and without an opportunity being given to them to show cause why their names should be erased, should be sent to the various police authorities throughout the country in order to be entered in a record. One of the ways to make a law unpopular was to make the penalties it imposed unnecessarily severe. To employ the police at every turn in carrying out a law would make it unpopular.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, so much objection had been urged against the retention of this clause by those whose opinion he valued, that he did not feel disposed to fight for its retention.
§ MR. GREENEsaid, it was necessary to watch Her Majesty's Government very closely with regard to the penalties. They were in every Bill, and, in fact, this might be called "a penalty Government."
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clause 77 (Repeal of Acts at variance with this Act).
§ On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the words "at variance," in page 31, line 26, were struck out, and the word "inconsistent" inserted.
§
THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to add the following words to the end of the clause:—
And provided, That any sum payable to a schoolmaster prior to the passing of this Act, under the Act of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighty-seven, shall continue to be paid to him so long as he holds the office of schoolmaster on account of which such sum was payable to him, and shall thereafter be paid to the School Board of the parish in which he held such office, for the purposes of the school fund.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had been, told, on good authority, that in some of the Highland districts the schools had fallen into desuetude, and though the schoolmasters continued to receive their salaries and their schoolhouses, there were no scholars attending them. It could never be the intention of the Treasury to pay salaries to those schoolmasters who did not perform any duties; and therefore to meet the cases to which he had referred, he moved to insert the words "and performs the duties" after the words "holds the office of schoolmaster."
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not consent to accept the Amendment. The office of schoolmaster was statutory. [Mr. M'LAREN: And so were the duties.] He (the Lord Advocate) had never heard of any such cases as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]