HL Deb 07 June 1869 vol 196 cc1281-93

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he had now to bring before their Lordships the Amendments which he had undertaken to propose on the Report of this Bill. The first related to the constitution of the Central Board. He had framed a clause carrying out the opinion of the House that the Central Board should be nominated instead of being elected. Considering, however, that there existed in Scotland several powerful ecclesiastical bodies who would all keep a jealous watch on the proceedings of the Board, he had not, while giving up the plan of an election of representatives by the different interests, given up the idea that the persons selected by the Crown should be conversant with the interests and feelings of those various bodies. It would be remembered that, on a former occasion, the number three had been fixed upon as the proper number for the nominated Board. Upon further consideration, however, the Government had come to the conclusion that the Crown ought to have more elbow room than this, and that three members were insufficient to represent all the various interests. He therefore proposed that the Board should consist of seven members. The Royal Commissioners had recommended fourteen, and in the original Bill nine was the number proposed; as he was now prepared to reduce that number by two—making the Board to consist of seven—he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he was surprised at the proposition which had just been made by the noble Duke, because on a former occasion, on an Amendment moved by the Earl of Rosse, the House had expressly decided that the Board should consist of three Commissioners to be nominated by the Crown, and to be paid by the Crown. The noble Duke said that where great interests are at stake, it was necessary that the Crown should have elbow room. Well, he begged to remind the noble Duke that, in a Bill, which would conic shortly under the discussion of this House—the Bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church—in which great interests are at stake, the number of Commissioners who were appointed was only three. Surety, if three Com- missioners were sufficient to deal with the matter of the Irish Church, it was not too much to say that three would be quite sufficient to carry out the new educational system of Scotland. In addition to departing from the number agreed upon on a former occasion, the noble Duke's Amendment made no mention of the subject of payment, but left that matter to the House of Commons. That being so, he said that this Bill was not at present a perfect one; and he contended that their Lordships ought to have before them the whole of the system by which the Government proposed to carry out the education of Scot- land. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Colonsay) was about to move an Amendment that the number of Commissioners should only be three, and that they should be paid by the Crown. If the noble Duke declined to acquiesce in that proposal, he (the Duke of Richmond) would have seriously to consider whether he should not ask their Lordships to reject the Bill altogether on the third reading. He did not oppose the Bill going into Committee, because he thought Amendments might be made in it and to some extent that had been done; but if the noble Duke now sought to depart from what had been previously agreed upon, he repeated that he should have to consider whether he ought not to ask their Lordships to reject the Bill altogether.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

said, when the question was last under discussion his impression certainly was that the num-of Commissioners was to be three only, and his own opinion was that that number would be much better than seven. In constituting the Board in the manner now sought, they were endeavouring to combine functions which were inconsistent and incompatible. For instance, he did not think they could combine a representative body with executive functions.

LORD ABINGER

expressed surprise at the proposal of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) to revert, in some degree, to the constitution originally proposed, he having on a former occasion stated that this was not one of the essential points of the measure. The great majority of the Petitions which had been presented had objected to that constitution.

LORD COLONSAY

contended that a paid Board of three would feel more responsibility and would devote more time and attention to their duties than an unpaid Board of seven. The latter would be likely to attend very irregularly, and only when there was some particular question to be decided, while three were likely to devote their time and attention to the business for which they were paid. This would ensure constant attendance. The smaller body would be able to obtain ail the information necessary for dealing with the different interests; especially as the Bill gave to the Board power to appoint assistant Commissioners, who were to be paid.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

would not put the House to the trouble of a division, as the majority seemed to prefer the smaller number of Commissioners. He had been anxious, however, that the Board should reflect the opinions and feelings of the various bodies interested. As to the Commissioners being paid, the Bill had been introduced into this House partly on his advice in order that their Lordships might not complain of a lack of employment during the earlier part of the Session; but all money clauses would have to be struck out on the Bill going down to the House of Commons. Notwithstanding the threat of the noble Duke, he could not pledge the Government as to the course they would deem it right to pursue on this point. The original proposal was that the chairman and secretary should be paid; and it must be remembered that in bodies of this kind the routine work rested very much with the chairman and secretary, the other members attending only when questions of principle had to be decided. He could not agree with the noble and learned Lord that unpaid members of the Board would be habitually non-attendant; the reverse was proved to be the case in the sittings of the Privy Council.

Amendment withdrawn.

Amendment moved in line 8 after ("State") to insert— (" One of which throe persons shall by the said writing be appointed chairman; and such three persons and their successors shall each receive an adequate salary at a rate to be fixed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and to be paid out of any moneys voted by Parliament for that purpose.")—(The Lord Colonsay.)

LORD COLONSAY

, in moving his Amendment, inquired what was the case of the Irish Education Commissioners?

LORD CAIRNS

said, there was one paid Commissioner and two very efficient paid secretaries.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that this was an argument in favour of the proposal of the Bill; for Scotland having only half the population of Ireland, a paid chairman and one paid secretary would be sufficient. There was a Standing Order of the House of Commons that no additional charge should be thrown on the people, except on the initiative of the Government, and he need not point out the importance of this rule, for if independent Members were allowed j to bring forward such propositions great | confusion would be the consequence. It was surely inexpedient that a power from which independent Members of the House of Commons were debarred should be assumed by independent Members of the House of Lords, and he hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.

LORD COLONSAY

said, that the question which they were discussing was not a money clause in a Bill, but the constitution of a new Board; and if the House was of opinion that it should be constituted in the manner proposed—namely, by a Board composed of three paid members, surely it was in their power to say so. He would, however, with the leave of the House, strike out of the proposed Amendment all the words after the word "salary."

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

was very much surprised to hear a statement of that kind coming from that side of the House. There was a very distinctive feature between the Constitution of this country and that of the United States. It is well known that in England Votes of money could only be initiated by a Minister of the Crown and in the House of Commons, and anybody who had taken any interest in the discussions of the American Legislature must know that it was very much deplored by many eminent men in America that a power of initiating Money Bills by independent Member of Congress should exist. He was very much concerned to hear that it was proposed by any Member of their Lordships' House to initiate a system of the payment of public functionaries, by the insertion of such an Amendment as that proposed.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

did not see that the Amendment tended to Americanize our institutions, nor did he see anything unconstitutional in it. The Amendment simply asserted their Lord-ships' opinion that the Board should consist of three Commissioners and that they should be paid. If the mere wording was objectionable it could be altered.

EARL GRANVILLE

thought that if the clause was left out after the word ''members" it might perhaps be in Order; but what was really proposed was to bind the Treasury to pay them, which he thought would be unconstitutional.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that they had no wish whatever to pass an unconstitutional clause; but what they wanted was that there should be a paid Board, and they had a perfect right to insert such an Amendment.

EARL GRANVILLE

doubted whether it could be constitutionally put.

LORD CAIRNS

said, in regard to Bills originating in their House the understood practice of their Lordships was either to strike out on the third reading any money clauses, or to print them in red ink. When they went down to the House of Commons such clauses were not regarded as part of the Bill but merely as an expression of opinion on the part of their Lordships' House. He would remind their Lordships that in the House of Commons private Members had a right to move money Amendments to money clauses.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

suggested that the words "and to be paid out of any moneys voted by Parliament for that purpose" should be omitted. There could be nothing unconstitutional in voting that the Commissioners should be paid salaries "at a rate to be fixed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

pointed out that this would not obviate the objection, since the Commissioners of the Treasury could only make payments out of moneys voted by Parliament.

LORD REDESDALE

said, that unless their Lordships had some power of this kind they would be incapable of considering any Bill of this nature. If it was the opinion of the House that it was right that the gentlemen who were to constitute the Board ought to be paid, surely they had a right to say so; and if, on the other hand, the Commons thought they ought not to be paid, the Bill would come back to their Lordships' House without such a provision for their payment. At any rate there was no reason whatever why the insertion of such a provision should induce them to negative the Amendment here. It was quite; right that the Bill should go down to the other House with a suggestion or opinion that the Commissioners should be paid; if they thought they should not they would strike out the provision.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that when the Bankruptcy Bills were introduced in their Lordships' House the money clauses were not inserted. But it seemed to him that the real objection to the Amendment lay in the words that the salaries should be paid at a rate to be fixed by the Treasury. He thought such a power had never been given in an Act of Parliament before.

LORD CHELMSFORD

suggested that the Amendment should stop at the word salary."

LORD COLONSAY

accepted the suggestion.

Then the Amendment moved as follows:— ("One of which three persons shall by the said writing be appointed chairman; and such three persons and their successors shall each receive an adequate salary ")—(The Lord Colonsay.)

On Question?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 84; Not-Contents 49: Majority 35.

CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. Abinger, L.
Richmond, D. [Teller.] Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Rutland, D.
Cairns, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Castlemaine, L.
Chelmsford, L.
Bath, M. Churston, L.
Bristol, M. Clarina, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Amherst, E.
Bandon, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Bathurst, E. Colchester, L.
Brooke and Warwick, E. Colonsay, T. [Teller.]
Coventry, E. Colville of Culross, L.
Denbigh, E. Crofton, L.
Derby, E. Dunboyne, L.
Devon, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
Egerton, L.
Elphinstone, L.
Eldon, E. Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Erne, E.
Feversham, E. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Gainsborough, E.
Haddington, E. Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
Home, E.
Lauderdale, E. Headley, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Heytesbury, L.
Lucan, E. Hylton, L.
Malmesbury, E. Kilmaine, L.
Manvers, E. Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.)
Nelson, E.
Portarlington, E. Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Romney, E.
Rosse, E. Ormathwaite, L.
Selkirk, E. Penrhyn, L.
Stradbroke, E. Petre, L.
Strange, E. (D. Athol.) Redesdale, L.
Tankerville, E. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Saltoun, L.
Doneraile V. Sherborne, L.
Gough, V. Silchester, L. (E. longford.)
Hardinge, V.
Hawarden, V. Sinclair, L
Hereford, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Sidmouth, V. Sondes, L.
Templetown, V. Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)
Gloucester and Bristol, Bp. Walsingham, L.
Wynford, L.
Tuam, &c, Bp.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) De La Warr, E.
Ducie, E.
York, Archp. Fortescue, E.
Granville, E.
Devonshire, D. Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)
Grafton, D.
Saint Albans, D. Kimberley, E.
Minto, E.
Ailesbury, M. Morley, E.
Normanby, M. Powis, E.
Airlie, E. Eversley, V.
Albemarle, E. Halifax, V.
Camperdown, E. Sydney, V.
Clarendon, E. Torrington, V.
Cottenham, E.
Dartrey, E. St. David's, Bp.
Belper, L. Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Mostyn, L.
Orrery.) [Teller.] Northbrook, L.
Camoys, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Churchill, L.
Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.) Romilly, L.
Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Dacre, L.
Foley, L. [Teller.] Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Keane, L.
Lawrence, L. Taunton, L.
Leigh, L. Vernon, L.
Lurgan, L. Westbury, L.
Methuen, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Clause 18 (Manner of passing Resolution for conversion of old or adopted schools into new national schools).

LORD ABINGER

proposed an Amendment, the effect of which would be in cases where a Resolution for conversion should have been adopted, as provided by Clauses 16 and 17, to take from the heritors and minister the option of converting the "old schools" into "new national schools," and making it compulsory on the Board to do so; leaving it still to the option of the trustees and managers in the case of "adopted schools."

Amendment moved in line 11, to leave out ("it shall be lawful for the said heritors and minister") and insert— ("the Board shall in the case of all old national schools be bound to convert the same, and in the case of all adopted schools it shall be lawful.")—(The Lord Abinger.)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, all the other Amendments proposed on the other side went in another direction to this. They had all been intended to throw impediments in the way of conversion of schools into the national system; but this Amendment would facilitate conversion. If noble Lords opposite approved of it he would not object.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 (Election of school committee in landward parishes).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, they now came to a clause to which he desired to invite the serious attention of noble Lords opposite. He was afraid the House did not fully understand the nature of the Amendment which had been carried in Committee; but he could state, from the communications he had received from various parts of Scotland, that great importance was attached to the question. The House was aware that what he might call the Liberal party of education in Scotland—and that party included many persons who were not Liberals in politics—contended that the existing national schools being founded on statute and supported by rates—which rates the heritors might levy, though they did not generally do so, on their tenants—that these national schools should be at once, and before all others, brought under the new system of management. That was the great aim of the Liberal party in Scotland, and it was impossible to deny that there was much force in their arguments. The national schools were supported by rates, which might be, and in some cases were—though he admitted not usually—levied upon the tenants; but there was not a fraction of power in their management committed to the hands of the tenants—it was exclusively in the hands of the large proprietors. But the feeling in favour of the existing national schools was so strong that the Commissioners had suggested a compromise, which he (the Duke of Argyll) was endeavouring by these clauses to carry into effect. The compromise was, that while there should be no change in the management of the national schools, unless with the consent of the heritors, on the other hand it was provided that, wherever a school was directed to be erected, or where a denominational school was adopted and thrown upon the rates, the local committee should be of a popular composition, and it was proposed that the proprietors should elect one-half the committee and the occupiers the other half. This, he thought, was a fair compromise, and he urged upon the House in Committee not to oppose it. An Amendment was carried, however, by which it was provided that the committees of management should be elected one-half by the heritors, and the other half by the rate-payers. Now, he submitted to the House that this was not giving due and fair weight to the popular influence It was absolutely essential that there should be a larger representation of the popular voice in the committees—especially in the case of schools connected with Dissenting Churches, who would not willingly allow their schools to be placed practically under the management of the landed proprietors of the country. By the clause, as it now stood, all the national schools now in the country, and three-fourths of the other schools, would be practically under the management of the landed proprietors. Now, what would the effect of that be upon the election of schoolmasters? It was eight years since by law the office of schoolmasters in the national schools was thrown open to Dissenters, Free Churchmen, and others; and yet there was hardly a single instance in which a Dissenter had been elected. Now, where they had to deal with a large number of schools erected by Dissenters at their own expense, it was not to be expected that they would allow their schools to be thrown under the management of men who certainly had not been disposed to admit them to a fair share of power. The Royal Commissioners had paid greater attention to the subject than it was possible their Lordships could have done since the Bill had been before the House, and he, therefore, urged upon their Lordships to accept their suggestion. He had prepared a clause which made provision for these several objects. He would now propose that, instead of the clause as it was amended in Committee, it should be provided that half the School Committee be elected by the rate-payers, one-quarter by the heritors, and one-quarter by small proprietors who were not heritors; with the understanding that the last two classes might vote in other proportions than one-quarter each, but so that they should never elect more than one-half between them. The noble Duke then moved the first section of the proposed clause.

Amendment movedto leave out Clause 28, and insert the following clause:— (In landward parishes board to fix number of school committee and day of election.) In every landward parish in which it shall have been duly resolved to establish a new national school (and in which there is no existing school committee), the board shall forthwith intimate such resolution to the sheriff of the county within, which such parish is situated, and issue an order fixing the number of members of the school committee of such parish, which shall be four, six, or eight, to be elected as herein after mentioned, and also fixing the day on which the list hereinafter mentioned shall be annually completed, and the day of such election; and such order may be rescinded or varied from time to time by the board, and shall he advertised in such manner as the board shall direct."—(The Duke of Argyll.)

LORD COLONSAY

said, the propositions of the Royal Commission were not unanimously adopted, and the Bill did not profess to be in all respects founded on their recommendations. The object of the Committee in altering this clause was to provide that the schools should be under the management of persons of more enlarged views on the subject of education, and who would, in all probability, select a better schoolmaster than the committees provided for in the Bill. It was therefore agreed that the heritors as defined in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill should elect one-half, of the School Committee and ratepayers who were not heritors the other half. The proposal now made by the noble Duke was really to revert to the proposition originally made in the Bill, and which the House when the Bill was in Committee had already rejected, which was that all proprietors without reference to value should elect one half of the School Committee and the occupiers the other half. The proposal now made was that proprietors of lands and heritages of a value exceeding £ 100. and proprietors under that value being ratepayers, should elect one half- the committee and the rate-payers the other half, with a power to the Board to divide the proprietors into two classes and to give to each class a certain share of the elections of the one half of the School Committee. That was a power impossible to be exercised, and useless if possible. The objection of the noble Duke was that the clause as it stood put too much power into the hands of the largo proprietors; but when he reminded their Lordships that all persons who were on the old valuation roll of a county for the amount of £ 100 were classed as heritors, it would be seen that that fear was groundless. But if the noble Duke would so far modify his proposed Amendment as to agree that the power of electing one-half of the School Committee should be given to all proprietors rated at £ 100 according to the valuation for the time being instead of to heritors as defined, he would be disposed to acquiesce in such an arrangement and alteration of the clause.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, the noble and learned Lord argued that the effect of the clause as it stood was to secure on the committees persons of enlarged minds, and their Lordships might think so; but that might not be the opinion of those who were excluded. His great objection to the clause as it stood was that while the large proprie- tors had the sole management of all the old national schools, they would have two-thirds of the new practically under their management also. The small proprietors were just as anxious for the results of education as the larger proprietors, and he must say he thought it unreasonable that they should not have a proper share in the management.

On Question, That Clause 28 stand part of the Bill?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 73; Not-Contents 45: Majority 28.

CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. Churston, L.
Richmond, D. Clarina, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Bath, M. Colchester, L.
Colonsay, L. [Teller.]
Amherst, E. Colville of Culross, L.
Bandon, E. Crofton, L.
Brooke and Warwick, E. Delamere, L.
Coventry, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Denbigh, E.
Derby, E. Egerton, L.
Devon, E. Elphinstone, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Erne, E.
Gainsborough, E. Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
Haddington, E.
Home, E. Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Lauderdale, E.
Leven and Melville, E. Headley, L.
Malmesbury, E. Heytesbury, L.
Manvers, E. Hylton, L.
Nelson, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Romney, E.
Rosse, E. Kilmaine, L.
Selkirk, E. Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)
Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
Tankerville, E. Ormathwaite, L.
Penrhyn, L.
De Vesci, V. Petre, L.
Doneraile, V. Redesdale, L.
Gough, V. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Hardinge, V.
Hawarden, V. Saltoun, L.
Hereford, V. Sherborne, L.
Templetown, V. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Abinger, L. [Teller.] Sinclair. L.
Bolton, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Sondes, L.
Walsingham, L.
Cairns, L. Wynford, L.
Chelmsford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) Ailesbury, M.
Normanby, M.
Devonshire, D. Airlie, E.
Saint Albans, D. Albemarle, E.
Camperdown, E. Camoys, L.
Clarendon, E. Churchill, L.
Cottenham, E. Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Dartrey, E.
De La Warr, E. Foley, L. [Teller.]
Ducie, E. Keane, L.
Fortescue, E. Lawrence, L.
Granville, E. Leigh, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.) Lurgan, L.
Methuen, L.
Kimberley, E. Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Minto, E. Mostyn, L.
Morley, E. Northbrook, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Eversley, V.
Halifax. V. Romilly, L.
Sydney, V. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Torrington, V.
St. David's, Bp. Sundridge L. (D. Argyll.)
Belper, T. Vernon, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery) [Teller.] Wenlock, L.
Wrottesley, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, the results of the alterations which had been made in the Conscience Clause would be that not only would the denominational schools be kept out of the new arrangement, but they would be supported by double the rate of grant, even where they were not considered to be necessary by the Central Board. He wished attention to be directed to this point, for it was a very serious matter. Some of these classes were exceedingly fanatical. Take the case of the Free Church. In some counties in the North of Scotland, the Free Church clergy had actually excommunicated or threatened to excommunicate persons if they sent their children to the Established schools; yet it would be quite possible that a 3d. rate should be levied and a new school established, and that because of this fanatical feeling another school might exist alongside of it; for the Privy Council had power not only to support such a school by a rate grant, as formerly, but by a double rate of grant. The same was the case with the Episcopalians, some of whom were quite as fanatical and extreme as the Free Church. He thought provisions which brought about such a state of things would not receive the sanction of Parliament.

Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 119.)