Lords Sitting of 19 March 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Parochial Schools (Scotland) (11).
Royal Assent—(£8,406,272 13 s. 4d.) Consolidated Fund [32 Vict. c. 1]; Bruce's Restitution.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 11.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said that, as he had fully explained to the House the nature of its provisions when he introduced it, he would not trouble their Lordships with any remarks on the present occasion.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Duke of Argyll)
  LORD ABINGERsaid, it was not his intention to detain the House at any length with remarks in respect to the principle involved in the Bill, not wishing to oppose it at the present stage; but there were, however, a few suggestions he desired to make on matters of detail.
  1760
  He was aware that it was not usual to discuss particular clauses of any measure on the second reading, but to wait until the Bill reached the Committee. Yet if the suggestion thrown out, a few days ago, by a noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) was to be carried out, and Bills of this importance to be no longer referred to Select Committees, it would be necessary, he thought, even on the second reading, to consider the bearing which particular clauses might have upon the Bill. There were one or two points to which he begged now to direct the attention of the noble Duke. The first was connected with the imposition of the school rate. The noble Duke proposed to levy a rate of 3d. Now, it was distinctly stated by the Schools Commission that a 2d. rate would be sufficient for all purposes in the rural parishes of Scotland, and also in the principal towns, and that a 2½d. rate would be sufficient for Glasgow and a few of the other large towns. He would therefore wish to ask the noble Duke, not with a view to making any objections to the rate he now proposed, but simply for information, what were his reasons for substituting a 3d. rate for the 2½d. one? He was afraid that if the noble Duke carried out his proposition with respect to this rate by means of an irresponsible Board, and should the 3d. rate be exceeded, he could not perceive how the Bill would enable any ratepayer to obtain a remedy from a court of law, should he be driven to make the application. His next objection was to the clause which related to the conversion of the old national schools into new national schools. There was power given by the Bill for that conversion, and further, there was a very objectionable power vested in the Board to decline accepting these schools should they think fit to become national schools. The effect of that must be that, in liberal parishes where the salaries of schoolmasters had been increased, and where good school buildings had been erected, this irresponsible Board would have the power of objecting to take over these schools and buildings, with a view of proposing an additional assessment of 3d. for their new schools. Now, he should like to know what was meant by the imposition of this 3d. rate. The object of the Bill was to provide for the education of the people, and as all landward parishes would soon have the bur-

  1761
  den of maintaining the schools cast upon them by this Bill, he thought they tad a right to get some information from the noble Duke with respect to this rate. He thought it objectionable that the people of Scotland should be made to pay a double assessment—one by the heritors and the other by the ratepayers—as they would undoubtedly have to do, should this Bill be passed in its present shape. His own opinion was that it would be much better to have only one assessment and one principle contained in the Bill. This 3d. rate hardly gave a proper idea of the real amount of taxation which would be imposed by it. He would quote a few figures taken from the Report, which would put very fairly before the country the amount of taxation which the managers and ratepayers would be called upon to pay. The total amount of money levied under the parochial system for all the schools in Scotland in landward parishes was £47,700, and the number of schools supported by these contributions was 1,008, making an average of £47 per school. He found, moreover, that the total amount of rateable property in Scotland, excluding the Parliamentary and Royal burghs, was £10,750,000. Now, a 3d. rate upon that amount would raise £ 134,000, which sum under the present Bill might be raised, in addition to the £47,000 already subscribed by the heritors. In the county of Invernessshire this would amount to an additional sum of £90 on the average in each parish. There was another point which he wished to bring under the notice of the noble Duke. He thought that an additional number of parishes on the West Coast of Scotland might be included in what are called the "insular parishes," to which enlarged grants might be made by the Privy Council; and he thought that the principle might be further extended to all parishes where the poor rate—which was a good criterion of the prosperity of the parish—exceeded 2s. in the pound. Where, on the other hand, the population was so sparse as to make it scarcely worth while to erect a school, he thought the ratepayers should have the power of objecting to the obligation of providing a school. He objected also to the constitution of the proposed Education Board, as provided in the Bill. It was to consist of eight members: two of whom were to be ap-
  1762
  pointed by the ratepayers, two by the conveners of counties, two by the town councils of burghs, two by the Universities, and one by the associated schoolmasters. The other member of the Board was to be the paid servant and nominee of the Crown, and was to act as Chairman with a casting vote. The other Members were not to be paid. Now he held that service which was poorly paid was, generally speaking, very poorly rendered, and that therefore they had no right to ask for gratuitous service. He thought the ratepayers had a right to demand better representation on the Board, and that in fact the principle of representation following taxation should be observed. He had an especial objection to a member being appointed by the associated schoolmasters. The associated schoolmasters were in fact neither more nor less than a trades union, not the less dangerous because its members were educated, and able to get up Petitions, and they already had more influence in Parliamentary elections than it was advisable they should have. Although, moreover, their interests were identical with those of the ratepayers as far as furnishing a sound education was concerned, they were in direct opposition as regarded salaries; the object of the schoolmasters was to obtain as large salaries as practicable, while that of the former would be to pay not more than was consistent with due efficiency. The proposed constitution of the Board was objected to by all noble Lords and Members of Parliament from Scotland with whom he had conversed. What he preferred was that the Board should consist of three members, to be paid by grants from the Crown. One should be the Chairman, as at present proposed, and a nominee of the Government, and have a casting vote; and the others should be elected by the commissioners of Supply or conveners of counties; and the third by the connection of Royal burghs. He trusted the noble Duke would take that suggestion into consideration. He should certainly in Committee oppose that form of Board which was now proposed. Another matter also, he thought, deserved consideration—namely, the retiring allowances to the masters. If they were to be provided for at all, he thought there should be a minimum sum, and that the minimum limit should be £15, with a discretion to the school com-

  1763
  mittee to allow one-third or one-half of the salary, dealing with each case on its merits. Although he had thought it his duty to make these remarks, he had great pleasure in supporting the principle of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he was glad to gather from the observations of his noble Friend (Lord Abinger) that there was no intention on the part of noble Lords opposite to oppose the second reading of the Bill. The principle of the Bill he took to be the extension of the parochial system to the whole of Scotland, and the application of that system to the new and increasing wants of the country. The system in operation, of which the Scotch were very proud and which had received the approval of highly competent judges, was based upon rating. Now, it had been objected that if they had rating for the purposes of education, it led to the discouragement of voluntary efforts. It had been shown, however, conclusively, by a letter in The Times, written by Mr. Cumin, the late secretary of the Education Commission, that in Scotland it by no means followed that because the Scotch had a system of rating, therefore voluntary effort was discouraged. Mr. Cumin showed that, although a system of rating exists in Scotland, yet the voluntary subscriptions are, in proportion to the population, equal to those in England; and that in the districts where rating prevailed a large number of schools received assistance from the Privy Council—proving that a certain amount, at least, must have been subscribed by the people; the fact being that the landed proprietors contributed a larger sum than they were bound to do, thus standing in the position of voluntary subscribers. But that did not bring out the full strength of the case. In many cases, where the masters received a larger salary than the £35 which the heritors were bound to pay, those masters were uncertificated, so that no grant was given. The cases, indeed, where only the £35 was given were exceptions to the rule; and in that way there must be a considerable amount received from voluntary aids. He was much surprised to hear some of the opinions which had been expressed in that House, not only as regards the question of rating, but also as regards the question of primary education. The other night, on a Motion being brought for-
  1764
  ward by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), a noble Lord said that for his part he did not think it was of any use to educate the agricultural classes. He understood the noble Lord to apply that observation to some of the English counties. He wondered whether noble Lords who entertained that opinion had ever thought of comparing the condition of the labouring classes in the Southern and Midland counties of England, where education was at a low ebb, with their condition in the Northern counties and in Scotland, where a system of education had prevailed for 200 years. In the Southern and Midland counties of England the condition of the agricultural labourer was not a very hopeful one. He was rooted to the soil in which he was born, and after labouring for many years, he had only to look forward to ending his days in a workhouse, or to obtaining out-door relief. But in the Northern counties it was no uncommon thing for an agricultural labourer to accumulate a sum of £150 or £200; and in Scotland it was not at all an uncommon thing for an agricultural labourer, before he had passed the term of middle life, to find himself in possession of a good farm. He thought it was not at all difficult to connect this state of things with education. The Scotch labourer, when he left school, looked forward to pushing his way in the world. He read the newspapers, corresponded with his own class, knew the rate of wages elsewhere as well as the farmers did; and if he found that he could obtain in another part of the country 1s. 6d. or 2s. a day more than he had where he was located, he emigrated to that other district. It might be said that only an unmarried man could do this, but it was one of the results of the provident habits imparted by education that agricultural labourers generally married late in life, and were therefore the better able to emigrate. So much for the influence of education. Some persons who argued this question appeared to think that they had to choose between paying an educational tax in addition to their other rates and taxes, or the latter only. He thought they had no such alternative. The question was whether they were to pay a moderate rate for education, or be subject to a large and constantly increasing rate for the relief of the poor. With respect to the Bill before the House, there were,

  1765
  he thought, a great many of its provisions to which they must all cordially agree. He cordially approved the inducements it offered to managers of schools to place them under the inspection of the Privy Council; for, as a rule, the superiority of inspected over non-inspected schools was very striking. He was convinced, for his own part, that they ought, as far as they possibly could, to get rid of the denominational system, and substitute for it a national system. He rather doubted whether the power should not be vested in the managers of schools rather than in the Board to dismiss schoolmasters, the managers being the persons principally interested in the success of the schools. At the same time, he thought the machinery proposed to carry out the Bill was very defective, and required a great deal of re-casting. He agreed with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Abinger) that the constitution of the Board was objectionable. Without binding himself to the plan his noble Friend had suggested, he thought that the Chairman of the Board should be appointed by the Crown, and be responsible to the Crown and to Parliament. That proposal might not be very popular in Scotland, but as they could not get rid of the Board, he thought they ought to do the best to improve it. He understood the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in introducing the Bill, to say that the Board was to have power to decide which school was to receive the grant and which should not. Now, that was giving the Board a power of dealing with a considerable sum of money voted by Parliament. On the Board, as proposed, there were to be two members appointed by the Crown, two by the Universities, two by the burghs, and two by the counties—in short, of the entire Board only two were to be really responsible for the expenditure of the money; the others were to be in the nature of the local board. This was the first time he thought they had heard of a local board having the control over money voted by Parliament, and he thought it was an innovation which was not an improvement. The Board would also have much power of imposing local rates, for they were to decide on the erection or enlargement of schools. Now, while the ratepayers had two representatives in the counties and two in
  1766
  the burghs, there were five members of the Board who did not, in any sense or manner, represent the ratepayers; therefore, if they came to a question of expense, the members for the counties and parishes, although they might be unanimously opposed to the expense, would be over-riden by the majority, which did not, in any way, represent the ratepayers. It seemed to him that those who had had the framing of this Bill had constituted this Board, which was to be intrusted with the control of a large amount of money raised by way of rate and taxes, in such a way that the chance of their having effective control over the money so raised was very small indeed. They all knew how strongly religious feeling ran in Scotland, and yet they found that in the matter of the election of the Board members of the Free Church were to be elected with United Presbyterians and members of the Established Church, and that they were to adjudicate on the claims of these schools. He could not conceive a plan better calculated to foster discord of every kind. Take the case of the Roman Catholics. What chance had any Roman Catholic of being elected by this Board? He must say that he should not like to be a Roman Catholic manager of a school in the hands of a Presbyterian Board. With regard to the expenditure, he agreed with his noble Friend that it would be much better to place the contributions under the immediate control of the Privy Council. It appeared to him to be monstrous that the Universities should have two members on the Board, when counties and the parishes had only the same number; and, another thing was, why there should be this number elected by the educational institute. That was quite a new feature in the scheme, and it was not recommended by the Commission. He must protest against the proposal to erect the schoolmasters into a separate class. They must bear in mind that the schools were for the benefit of the people, and not of the schoolmasters. There was another part of the scheme upon which he looked with great alarm and suspicion. He found it stated in the Schedule for the guidance of the schoolmasters that the standard of education was not to be lowered. Those were words of which they ought to

  1767
  have a clear explanation. What did they mean by a standard of education? Did they mean that the standard of the Privy Council was to be kept up, or that they were to introduce another standard? Before the Revised Code was introduced in Scotland, there were complaints of the neglect of the elementary branches of education—the acquaintance of the scholars with writing and arithmetic was much inferior to that of English children of the same age, taught in the schools which were under the supervision of the Privy Council. This fact was fully set forth in the second Report of the Scotch Education Commissioners, pp. 99–101. No doubt, it was very disagreeable for a schoolmaster of high attainments to have to attend continually to reading, writing, and arithmetic; but that was only the more reason why they should watch more closely that these branches were carefully attended to. After the Revised Code was introduced, there was a great improvement in these branches. Were they going, then, to throw the weight of the Government in the scale in favour of the higher branches as against reading, writing, and arithmetic? There was another proposal in this Schedule. It was that the endowments should be reckoned as part of the voluntary contributions, and that the Privy Council should give in proportion. He was not going to argue the question of endowments, but he would only say that the principle laid down there was diametrically opposed to the principle laid down in the Revised Code, which was only laid upon the table a short time ago. He wished to know why we are to apply to the people of Scotland a principle entirely different from the principle which they applied to England? He hoped time would be given to consider the Bill, so that they might be able to remedy some of the defects which he had pointed out.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in his introductory speech on the first reading of this Bill informed your Lordships that its provisions were formed substantially on the recommendations of a Commission which sat in 1864 to examine into the question of education in Scotland. He stated that that Commission was composed of representatives of all the leading religious bodies in Scotland
  1768
  which he enumerated. Among these was found no representative of the Roman Catholics of Scotland, who appear to have been entirely ignored in the matter. It is true that Catholics form a minority in Scotland, but I beg to inform your Lordships that that minority is composed of no less than 300,000 souls, or one-tenth of the population of Scotland, and surely these deserve to have their interests considered in a matter which affects them so vitally. My Lords, I have the honour on this occasion to be selected to represent that minority in your Lordships' House; and I have been entrusted with a Petition representing the grievances under which the Catholics of Scotland would labour if this Bill is carried into effect. It would have been signed much more numerously had there been time; but as it has the signatures of the Archbishop and three Bishops who rule over the Catholic Church in Scotland, and by several of their clergy, I trust it may not be thought wanting in weight. Before reading the Petition—which being short I shall ask your Lordships' permission to do—I will proceed to examine some of the chief provisions of this Bill. There will be a central Board established, of despotic power, ruling on every occasion by majorities which must practically necessarily be Protestant by the constitution of the Board. This Board will have the power of selecting which of the existing denominational schools shall continue to receive a national grant. Judging from the treatment which Catholics have hitherto received from Scotch Protestants in regard to the education of their pauper children, it will not be difficult to form an estimate of the chance their schools would have of selection by this Board. But this is not all. At a given date all denominational schools are to cease and to be "absorbed" in the new national system, and as a guarantee the noble Duke offers us a strict Conscience Clause. Now a Conscience Clause is a necessary concomitant of a denominational system when a very small minority exists in a parish where there is only one school, where a different creed is taught; but in a national system like this proposed, where there may be very large minorities, perhaps even a majority, occasionally professing a different religion to the one taught in the school, who is to see to the proper working of

  1769
  the Conscience Clause? who is to see that the children withdraw, and to what place are they to withdraw, and what are they to do whilst religious instruction is being imparted to those remaining in the school? My Lords, I think I am justified in saying that this Bill was drawn up by Presbyterians for the benefit of Presbyterians, for assuredly both the Episcopalians and Catholics will alike suffer under it. The noble Duke says that the differences among the Scottish Presbyterians are not so much upon doctrine as upon matters of Church government, but I need not tell your Lordships that the differences between them and the Catholics and Episcopalians involve grave matters of vital doctrine. But, my Lords, I look upon this Bill as the thin edge of the wedge by which secular education, as it is miscalled, will be extended hereafter to England and Ireland. If merely elementary education was to be imparted on this system, such as is familiarly denominated the "three R's," I should not so much cavil, but the noble Duke has distinctly stated, in his opening speech, that the higher branches of learning are to be taught, and he instanced by name history and geography. Now, my Lords, if these higher subjects which involve religious instruction, are to be taught in common to a school composed of mixed creeds, either the subjects must be so diluted to suit their scruples as to be practically useless, or else some one's conscience must be wounded. I will give your Lorships an example, which fell under my own notice some few years ago in Ireland, of the value of history as taught under this, the national system, in use there. I was staying at Fermoy with the Bishop, who took me to see his schools. I entered a magnificent school, which, had it not been wanting in all religious emblems, I should have taken for a purely Catholic school, as it was taught by nuns. I was invited to hear the children examined, and history, geography, arithmetic, and other branches of instruction were offered to my selection. I chose history; and, upon being asked to choose the period, I selected the reign of Henry VIII. What was my surprise when the teacher exclaimed—"Oh, we must not touch that. The Government will not allow us to teach the children that there has ever been such a thing as the Reformation."
  1770
  My Lords, I could hardly believe my ears; but so it was, and history was taught under this system with the cardinal point of English history, the "blessed Reformation," omitted! Am I wrong in calling this history emasculated? And will it not be the same with philosophy? But, my Lords, I will leave what might be thought sectarian grounds, and challenge the whole question on its own merits. I will ask your Lordships to consider well the distinction between instruction and education, for it is by a confusion of ideas on this matter that these errors arise. In what does instruction differ from education? My Lords, instruction is to education what the pencil of the artist is to the finished drawing which he produces thereby. I should like to hear the noble Duke's definition of education. I will give you mine, and I beg your Lordships' particular attention to it, as on this lies the whole gist of my argument. Education is the due development of all man's moral, mental, and physical powers, for the purpose of enabling him to accomplish the object of his creation. Now, then, for what object was man created? I answer in the simple words of the Catechism—" To love, honour, and serve God, and thereby to save his own soul." But how can man do this unless the basis of his education is to instruct him as to the nature and attributes of God, and his duties towards Him? In other words, unless he is taught definite, distinctive, dogmatic religious truth. My Lords, as the noble Duke rightly said—" were there but one religion all educacation would be easy enough:" but as there are many diversities of creeds, and must ever be where Protestantism exists, there is but one alternative left—namely, to give facilities for every religious communion to teach its own children in that way which will have a hold upon their consciences, and convince them that they have a higher duty than to worship their own selves, and seek their own self-interest above all things. My Lords, would you put edged tools into the hands of children without first instructing them how to use them? Well, the uneducated are like children, and what sharper tool can you put into a man's hands than a sharpened intelligence, the more dangerous if you fail to inform his conscience in the same ratio that you develop his intellect? You will on

  1771
  this system form that most dangerous member of society, that moral pest, an intelligent devil. See what the system is doing for Prance. Are you prepared to imitate it in this country? You have given an enlarged franchise, and are putting more power into the hands of the people. Cast your eyes around and see who are those that are plotting revolutions and subverting society. Are they not notorious scoffers at religion, if not professed infidels? My Lords, the cultivation of the intellect will do much towards indisposing men to gross and brutal crimes. As we used to learn at school—
  "Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes,
  Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros;"
  but if a man is not restrained by some higher principle, that of religious duty, he will succumb when the hour of trial comes. My Lords, I implore you to weigh well the consequences of admitting this principle. If this Bill is to pass a second reading, I trust it may be so altered in Committee as to be applicable to Presbyterians alone, for whom it was evidently intended; and I hope your Lordships will support me in the principle which I have laid down, that education without definite religious teaching is an impossibility, a mockery, and a farce.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: It is not my purpose, following the example of other noble Lords, to offer any opposition to the second reading of this Bill; but there are certain features of very great importance in it to which I feel it my duty to call your Lordships' attention. Before, however, I deal with the Bill itself, I think it is necessary to remark upon the peculiar mode in which the measure has been introduced to your Lordships' House. When inquiry is instituted into any subject of great national importance by means of a Royal Commission, whatever may be the recommendation of that Commission, it is generally regarded as the duty of the Government for the time being to take those recommendations into their serious consideration, and, having reviewed them in the light of the exigencies of the case and the peculiar views of those most interested in the result, to introduce a Bill adopting with more or less modifications the recommendations of the Commissioners. I think that upon this occasion a serious departure
  1772
  has been made from that long-established rule. I do not know an instance of a Royal Commission making any recommendation—however important—without some deviation, at all events, having been made from these recommendations—deviations instituted upon the responsibility of the Government, and better suited to the necessities of the case. But on this occasion we find this very peculiar course adopted—that the Bill relating to the subject of education is not introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Education Department of the Government (the Earl of Kimberley) upon his recommendation or authority, but that it is introduced by the noble Duke, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, whose name appears at the head of the Commissioners whose duty it was to inquire into this most important subject. The Bill is introduced almost verbatim et literatim, word for word, with one exception, and identical with the recommendations of the Commissioners. I have no right to question the discretion of Her Majesty's Government as to what measure on this subject they will propose for the adoption of Parliament; but, at the same time, I must say that the course pursued is altogether an unusual one, and one that betrays very little consideration of this subject on the part of the Government. The first point that strikes me in the Bill is that, while the measure is that proposed by the Royal Commissioners, it almost entirely ignores some most important features of their Report. Allow me to draw the attention of your Lordships to one of them. I believe the general principle included in every Bill presented by successive Governments relating to the education of the people in Scotland was that the true principle upon which these Bills ought to proceed was the extension of the parochial system; and I have been struck with this passage among the recommendations—
  "That the most desirable, and, in point of principle, the simplest course would be the extension of the parochial system in proportion to the whole population."
  I admit that the Commissioners afterwards profess to see grounds for departing from this wise conclusion; but, after examining the whole Report I confess I see no adequate ground for this departure. There is one point which particularly strikes one in the Report of

  1773
  the Commissioners, and that is that part which refers to the denominational system; and I cannot help thinking that the Commissioners started with a foregone conclusion that there was a necessity to establish some new national system, and that they contorted and twisted their facts to suit their conclusion. With regard to the denominational system, nothing is more plain in the Report of the Commissioners than that they lay down this particular fact that, whatever the defects of the denominational system in England, at all events they are not apparent in Scotland, and that the denominational system virtually has no effect; in impeding the progress of the national system. But in the face of that assertion the noble Duke lays a measure on the table, the whole aim of which is to uproot and destroy the denominational system in Scotland. Now, what will be the effect of this upon the voluntary principle in Scotland? The object of the Bill is to create "new national schools" and "adopted schools." I do not see that the adopted schools are likely to de- rive any benefit from the change proposed. They are to be subject to the direction of a Board, and they are enabled to act in contravention of any terms imposed upon them by their trusts, while the committee of the schools may call upon them to maintain the school, for which no funds are provided, out of their own pocket. Therefore, if the adopted schools are to take advantage of any provisions of the Act, it can only be with the view to their falling into the system of new national schools. But what will be the effect of this Bill upon the old national parochial schools? By degrees a system of starvation will be set up by which the whole of these old national schools, following out the theory of the Commissioners, will be forced into the system of the new national schools. There are various inducements held out to them to become new national schools, In the first place, the general Board has the power to create new national schools wherever it sees, or fancies it sees, the necessity; and the effect will be that you will have two systems of rating and two committees in a pariah, the one regulating the old and the other the new schools, and the effect of this will be that the old national schools must inevitably become absorbed into the new national schools. But what will be the
  1774
  effect of this upon the voluntary system? Your Lordships need only refer to the Report of the Royal Commissioners in order to see what a large amount of voluntary effort there is in Scotland. Collections in behalf of the schools are made in all parts of Scotland, not as in England in particular localities, where the schools exist only, but collections are made by different societies in all parts of Scotland, and then distributed generally throughout the country. But my own conviction is that when the system of rating is established in Scotland, that system will so affect the general opinion of the people in Scotland, that they will say—"Now that we are maintaining schools by rates, why should we any longer put our hands into our pockets to defray the costs of these voluntary schools which have so long continued?" and which I submit are of the greatest possible benefit. But there are one or two other points which I think deserve great consideration with regard to this measure. One of these is the representation of landowners upon the new Council, and this is the point to which I alluded as the one in which a serious departure had been made from the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. They recommended that there should be two classes of electors; one portion of the committee was to be elected by the owners of property—the representatives of respectability and responsibility—and the other portion was to be elected by the minor tenants and persons, who, no doubt, would be the lowest class of ratepayers. This was an important provision, and one necessary for maintaining the respectability of the schools, and I regret to see that it is omitted in the Bill of the noble Duke. He will, perhaps, say that the central Board has power to make regulations. I am not quite sure that that is clear on the face of the Bill; but I do not think it is a matter that ought to be trusted to the responsibility of the general Board, and I think that they ought to have directions laid down in the statute with regard to the general Board, which it is proposed by the Bill to constitute. With regard to the proposed constitution of the central Board, I agree very much with the remarks of the noble Lord opposite; and I cannot but think that very great confusion and difficulty will arise from the creation of this Board. But in saying this I speak

  1775
  with great deference of the people of Scotland, because I believe it is a part of the measure which has been generally acceptable to them, and, therefore, I only give your Lordships my own individual opinion that it is a system which would be found not to work well. That will be so particularly as the central Board will not be entrusted with the inspection of the schools—which is a point most necessary to enable the Board to judge of those cases where it is important to appoint new masters—but the inspection will continue as now in the hands of the Committee of the Privy Council, and grants are to be made, not to the Board, but directly to the treasurer of the schools. I cannot but think that the existence of the Board will open the door to great abuse, for the members being unpaid, will be very likely to fall under the direction of a clever secretary; and there may be conflicts between the Board and the Privy Council which may prove disadvantageous and inconvenient. One of the greatest objections to the Bill, as it seems to me, is the want of a guarantee for any religious teaching in the schools. The noble Duke, when he introduced this measure, stated that it had the general concurrence of the people of Scotland. I can only say that whatever evidence has come before me in reference to this measure since its introduction has been diametrically opposite to that. I do not mean to say that the people of Scotland are not very desirous of having a measure of education which will be satisfactory to all parties; but there is very great divergence of opinion with regard to this measure in Scotland, and that feeling has been expressed at meetings of the Free Church Presbyterians and other denominations; and if the noble Duke will refer to the newspapers he will find evidence of a large amount of dissatistion. But I think that your Lordships ought to contrast the provisions of this Bill with the existing law. The examiners of schoolmasters are chosen from the Universities, and three of them must be Professors of Divinity. The Bill, however, leaves out those provisions, and the examiners may be laymen or not. Then by the Act of 1861, the schoolmasters, although they are not required to profess or subscribe the "Confession of Faith," or Formula of the Church of Scotland, must subscribe a declaration
  1776
  that they will never, in the discharge of their office, endeavour, directly, or indirectly, to teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or to the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catechism. There is no provision of this kind in the Bill, and no sort of security that the masters profess any religion, whatever; yet these schools will soon absorb all the other schools. The noble Duke will perhaps say that in Scotland everybody is so impressed with the importance and necessity of having religious training for their children that it is needless to have a guarantee of this sort, for the school committees will see that proper appointments are made. I think this may be so; but at the same time, there is no provision for requiring a profession of faith from schoolmasters, and there is no power given to the committee, supposing a schoolmaster changes his views, or teaches doctrines contrary to religious belief, to discharge him without the consent of the central Board. I know it is strongly felt by the persons who have represented the case to me to be an objection that there is no security that the central Board will be composed of persons who will sufficiently recognize the importance of religion in the national teaching of Scotland. There is one other point which is of great importance, and which deals very hardly with a large class of schools—the schools at present supported by voluntary efforts. As the Bill stands, after March, 1870, all schools that are not national schools will be precluded from receiving any assistance from the Parliamentary Grant. Thus only one year is allowed for a great number of the schools belonging to the Free Church and other voluntary denominations to range themselves in the class of new national schools. I believe the Free Church has 600 schools in Scotland; and other denominations, though they have a less number of schools, are all of great importance, and working well; and yet, if in the brief space of one year these schools fail to come into the new system, they will be no longer capable of being recipients of the Parliamentary Grant. These are serious objections, and perhaps the noble Duke will endeavour to remove some of them during the progress of the Bill; but as it is not the pleasure of your Lordships to obstruct the second read-

  1777
  ing of the Bill, I have thought it necessary to bring before your Lordships' attention one or two points which I believed to be worthy of consideration.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble Friend who began this discussion (Lord Abinger) for the manner in which he dealt with this subject; because, although most of his observations referred to details, they are details of importance, and we have derived much information from my noble Friend's remarks. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to follow the points raised by the noble Lord in the order in which they were mentioned, as I shall thus be able to answer the greater part of the objections which have twice been taken to this measure. First, I am asked why the maximum school rate is fixed at 3d. instead of 2d. or 2½d., as recommended by the Commission. In many parts of Scotland a rate of 3d. will be rather inadequate for the purpose, although it will be ample upon the larger rentals of the richer counties. Of course the rate named is the maximum—not the amount which it will be compulsory in every case to raise, but the sum beyond which it will not be competent to go; it is not necessary that the heritors should impose the full rate if they do not need it. I am not quite sure whether it was the intention of my noble Friend to suggest that the maximum might be raised where even 3d. is insufficient—if it is, it is a useful suggestion and may be considered. Another point referred to is that of double assessment in the same county. If the heritors' school is insufficient and the Central Board find it necessary to insist upon having another, there will then be a double assessment; if, however, the heritors determine to put their parochial school upon the rates, their exclusive liability will cease, and they will pay simply as ratepayers—and in many of the rural parishes the heritors and their tenants are almost the only ratepayers. The new Bill will follow the principle of the old Scottish law—that of half-and-half assessment. We adhere strictly to our national system—that the rates should be levied from the owner and the occupier, with relief to either party in case he pays the whole. I now come to the additional aid of the Council Grant which is provided for the "insular" parishes. It must be remembered that the insular parishes are very easily de-
  1778
  fined, but that that is not the case with the mainland parishes. The object of the Privy Council is of course to defend themselves from undue demands on the grant and to give it only where it is necessary. I come now to the question of the constitution of the Board. This is, I confess, precisely one of those points on which each man has his own nostrum. There are probably many different ways of constituting the Board, each one of which will do just as well as another. You might, indeed, shake them all together in a hat and trust entirely to chance for the selection. I have a strong opinion on the subject; but if the House should think that the parochial teachers are not of sufficient importance to have a representative on the Board, I am not wedded to my own plan; and so, if noble Lords think that the ratepayers ought to be strengthened and that the two Members for the Universities should be struck out, though I should not approve such a course, I think that it is a matter of detail that may fairly be discussed and settled in Committee. By that I merely mean to say that, as to these matters, they relate solely to the details of the Bill, and that as matters of principle I attach no importance to them whatever. I certainly think that as the Bill now stands the powers of the Board without any check or control may, perhaps, be more arbitrary than necessary. I should therefore propose that when the Orders of the Board are clearly against the wishes of the ratepayers, the Orders shall not take effect until the Minutes have been laid before the two Houses of Parliament for forty days, when, if no steps are taken against them, they will be acted upon. I should also propose that an appeal should lie from the Orders of the Board to the Secretary of State. I think that these are fair concessions to make, and that the powers of the Board will be sufficiently strong even with the addition of these provisions. I now come to a point of considerable importance, and, I venture to say, very much misunderstood by my noble Friend behind (the Earl of Airlie)—that is, the proposal suggested in the Schedule of the Bill with regard to certain modifications of the Revised Code. I entirely agree with the remark of my noble Friend behind me as to the great value of a Revised Code, even as applied to Scotland. The Revised Code has been introduced

  1779
  into Scotland for the purpose of examination, but it has never yet been introduced into Scotland for the purpose of payment. It has been shown that in Scotland there has been considerable neglect in the elementary branches of education, and we hope that the introduction of the Revised Code will lead to greater attention being bestowed on this department of education. Now, the noble Duke who has just sat down (the Duke of Marlborough) expressed some surprise that this Bill was not introduced into your Lordships' House by the President of the Privy Council. But the course is by no means unusual, for the Public Schools Bill was brought in by my noble Friend who was Chairman of the Commission, and I cannot see anything which should occasion surprise when it was determined to introduce this measure into your Lordships' House, and to intrust it to a Member of your Lordships' House who was also the Chairman of the Commission. However, I am perfectly willing to leave that matter to the opinion of the people of Scotland. Now, with regard to denominational education, I never have objected, and never will object, to the principle of denominational education, except upon one ground, and that is that it is incompetent to overtake the educational wants of the country. I agree in the opinion that in itself and in the abstract it is an advantage that children should be brought up in connection with some definite system of dogmatic teaching. But there is no denying the fact that up to the present time there has been a lamentable deficiency of education in Scotland under a system which may be regarded as at once denominational and national. Let me remind the House that in principle the old national system of Scotland was the system of rating—rating on the owners and occupiers of property; and if that system is intended in the present day you must take all the consequences which flow from the extension of religious dissent. You cannot have a system founded upon rating among a people who are divided in religious opinion without more or less impairing your denominational system. But in Scotland, though the people are frequently divided on points of ecclesiastical discipline, there is, for the most part, tolerable unity in points of purely religious doctrine. The
  1780
  national system of Scotland, by a Bill which was passed some years ago, was separated from the exclusive connection with the Established Church. The masters may be Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and in some cases Roman Catholics. There is, absolutely, no restriction upon the choice of schoolmasters. I am quite I aware that in nine cases out of ten—perhaps in ninety-nine out of 100—the heritors of a parish, being members of the Established Church or Episcopalians interested in the support of the Established Church, have elected masters who are members of that Church, but it is quite open to them to elect whom they please. It is, therefore, a fallacy to suppose that the national system of Scotland is connected with the Established Church. With regard to the denominational schools in Scotland at present, the evidence of the Commission went to show that in the majority of cases they have been placed where they are of real value to the people; and where this is the case they will be continued. The principle of the Bill is that the management of the national schools is not interfered with, nor is the management of the denominational schools. Undoubtedly, the Bill provides that after a certain date no new grants shall be given by the Privy Council to denominational schools. With regard to the proposal made by the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (the Earl of Denbigh) I will not deny the force of some of his observations. I am for equality in the case of the Roman Catholics as well as in that of any other denomination; but I do not think that, for the sake of 300,000 or 400,000 Roman Catholics, we should stand in the way of a system of education which will suit all other denominations. Under the old parochial system the Roman Catholics never were coerced, and I cannot see why, under the protection of a stringent Conscience Clause, watched over by the central Board and by the Privy Council, the Roman Catholics should not take their place with all other members of the community and receive secular instruction, receiving at the same time, from their own priests or other religious teachers, such religious instruction as they may think it right to have given to them. But if the objections of the Roman Catholics be such that they cannot receive secular instruction in that way,

  1781
  I should prefer that they were left as they now are, under the Privy Council, separate, rather than that they should stand in the way of an educational system suitable to all other denominations. I have only to say further, that should your Lordships read the Bill a second time, I shall be prepared in Committee to consider any suggestions that may be made for the amendment of details.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had no desire to offer opposition to the second reading, but he wished for explanations on some points, because the more information their Lordships got on the details of the Bill now, the better would they be able to deal with it in Committee. In the first place, though there could be no doubt that a 3d. rate, if levied all over Scotland, would be sufficient for educational purposes, it was, he thought, very doubtful whether, in some particular parishes, that amount would be sufficient for the object in view. He thought, therefore, information should be given as to the parishes where the rating system was to be brought into operation. Again, he wished to know how this and the other House of Parliament were to deal with the question of rate? Here was a Bill which dealt with money in two different ways—first, there was the question of the local taxation, over which the Board was to have control; next, there was the application of the money derived from the Parliamentary Grant for education. The Lordships knew that in their House they were accustomed to take money clauses de bene esse; but that was not the point in this case. Suppose their Lordships passed the Bill through Committee, read it a third time, and sent it down to the other House. In the other House the clauses relating to the rate might be amended, in which case those clauses would come back again to their Lordships as new clauses, and not only as new clauses, but as money clauses. That was the difficulty to which he wished to direct the attention of the noble Duke; because it appeared to him that their Lordships would be powerless to deal with the amount of the rate, or the body which was to exercise the powers of rating. With respect to the constitution of the central Board, as the Bill stood the Privy Council would supply part of the funds, and the central Board would supply the other part. The Privy Coun-
  1782
  cil would therefore still exercise a supervision over the schools by inspection, and on the other hand certain powers would be vested in the central Board of Education. Now, it appeared to him that a collision might take place between these two powers; and the mischief was that there was no third body to step in and say which was right. Again, there was a provision that where an Order made by the central Board was objected to, Parliament should decide. The Order was to lie upon the table for forty days, and to take effect after that time, if not reversed. He confessed that he did not think it likely that Parliament would be induced to give its attention to details such as would be involved in Orders of the central Board. There was to be an appeal to the Secretary of State also. He ventured to submit that an appeal to the Privy Council in all cases would be more satisfactory. Something ought to be done with respect to this point. Further, he objected to the two members who were to be returned to the Education Board by the Universities. These members were to be elected by the Councils of the Universities, which were scattered all up and down the country, and had no limited organization; so that there would be the danger of the members not being properly chosen. The alteration he would suggest would be to vest the election of these two members in the University Courts, which consisted of but a small number of thoroughly competent persons, who themselves were elected by the University Councils. That would be a great improvement. In the formation of the local committees he thought it would be better that in the landward parishes they should be chosen by the parochial Board. He wished to know further why the denominational schools of Scotland, which it was admitted had worked well, were to be put an end to?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Bill did not propose to put an end to these schools. They were to be adopted under the now system.
  LORD CAIRNSadmitted the noble Duke had stated that it was intended the denominational schools should attach themselves to the new system, that they should become adopted schools, and should be allowed to be governed according to their former rules; but it was also proposed that this privilege should

  1783
  only be extended to such denominational schools as should be founded within two years after the passing of the Act. The result of this limitation would be to put a stop to the system of denominational schools to a certain extent. It was further provided, with regard to denominational schools already in existence, that they should not be allowed to come in under the new system unless they did so within a year after the passing of the Act. For his part he did not see why the present system with regard to these schools should not be continued. With regard to the parochial school question, it was clear that, notwithstanding the profession in the Preamble that the object of the measure was to extend the system of parish schools in Scotland, the Bill really proceeded to annihilate those schools altogether. In the first place, the name of these schools was to be abolished. In the next place, they were giving a direct bribe to the upper class of heritors to make over these schools to the national schools; because when these proprietors found that they were to continue to be rated for the old schools, and were to be made to pay an additional rate for the new schools, they would naturally seek to amalgamate the two. He would suggest to the noble Duke that it would, at all events, not be an imprudent course to adopt to provide that, before this transfer of the parish schools to the national schools was effected, an opportunity should be given to see how the system worked with regard to the new schools for, say, some two or three years. The noble Duke had not referred to the suggestion of the noble Lord behind him (Lord Abinger) that, if they were going to provide for certain of the parish schools under the new system, the decision as to which of those schools should be adopted should be left to the schools themselves, and not to the local body. He wished, further, to remind the noble Duke that he had not given the House any information with reference to the words of the Schedule relating to the standard of education to be maintained at these schools in future. The words of the Schedule were very difficult to understand, and the question might hereafter arise as to what was the present system of education in Scotland, the standard of which was not to be lowered. He begged that some information might be given to the
  1784
  House upon this subject. It had been, stated that the proposals in the Bill had met with general approval in Scotland; but, as far as he had been able to collect information upon the question, the manifestation of public opinion in Scotland did not appear to bear out that assertion. It was certain that the Established Church of Scotland did not approve the absence in the Bill of any provision for religious education in the national schools, while the Free Church in that country had strongly condemned such an omission.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) would perhaps have been better timed had they been made when the Bill was in Committee. The first point which the noble and learned Lord had taken related to the rate of 3d. in the pound. He should be in a better position to afford information upon that point when the Bill got into Committee. The noble and learned Lord, however, would recollect that there was a provision in the Schedule of the Bill that in those parishes where the rate of 3d. in the pound was not found sufficient the grant from the Committe of Council on Education might be doubled. The noble and learned Lord had asked what course they intended to adopt with regard to the rating clauses of the Bill. The usual course of striking out these clauses on the third reading would be pursued, a private communication on the subject being made to the other House with reference to them. The noble and learned Lord appeared to think that there might be some danger of clashing between the proceedings of the Committee of Council upon Education and those of the general Board established under this Bill. He, however, did not anticipate anything of the kind would happen, because the general Board established under this Bill had no duties of inspection. The inspection of the schools would be carried on as at present by the inspectors of the Committee of Council on Education, who would make or withhold their grants upon their own principles. The noble and learned Lord asked why it should be the object of this Bill to bring the denominational schools to an end, and stated the feeling which he himself entertained with regard to them. But the overwhelming evi-

  1785
  dence of the witnesses, ninety-nine out of 134, was in favour of a general or national system; and if there were such an unanimity of feeling on the subject in Scotland, it surely was worth while to make some sacrifices for the purpose of obtaining so great an end as the establishment of one uniform system; approved by the people. According to the noble and learned Lord, this was not a Bill to extend, but to destroy, the parochial by altering their name to national schools. But, surely, that was a verbal criticism? The schools, though they might be called national, would still remain parish schools, managed by local authorities and supported by local contributions. The noble and learned Lord also said that this was a Bill to bribe heritors into converting the existing parochial schools into national schools. But if, under the law as it now stood, heritors could recover half the assessment from their tenants, it was only fair that those who paid half the charge should be represented upon the Board having the management of the school. He could not agree with the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) in thinking that the landowners were the only persons who were to be considered respectable. As the object of this Bill was to extend education, it would require a large amount of local contributions to be levied, and it would be obviously unjust to make it a charge exclusively upon one description of property, falling exclusively upon the owners of land, to the relief of the occupiers. The noble Earl behind him seemed to imply that the Revised Code was in force in Scotland; but if that was his noble Friend's opinion he was in error. No doubt the system of examination in Scotland was carried out in the same manner as the system of examination in this country; but from the adoption of the Revised Code, six years ago, down to the present time it had been found impossible for successive Governments to apply it to Scotland in regard to the mode in which payments were made. The most essential and vital principle of that Code—payment by results—was not now, and had never been applied in that country. Having regard to that experience, it was natural to suppose that there must be some difficulties with regard to the feelings of Scotch people which it was very desirable to overcome; and it was pre-
  1786
  cisely for the purpose of enabling that principle to be applied and of overcoming those objections that the provisions had been introduced into the Bill to which his noble Friend took exception. The system in Scotland with regard to primary education—namely, the education of all classes in common schools—had always been widely different from the system existing in England; and so strong was the feeling in Scotland that it would be highly undesirable and mischievous to interfere in any way with that common system that it had been thought advisable to modify the Code so as to secure non-interference with these common schools. Two provisions were to be made on this head—first, that no question should be asked as to the class in life to which the parent of any child in the school belonged; and, secondly, that the subjects now taught in the parochial schools in Scotland should not be materially interfered with. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) asserted that the words of the Schedule were difficult to understand, and that questions might hereafter arise as to what was the present system of education in Scotland, the standard of which was not to be lowered. But the words to which the noble and learned Lord alluded referred to rules to be approved in the new Code, and the new Code had yet to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Bill when it passed. In the original Revised Code there were six standards, and when the child had passed through the highest he could not be examined again with a view to a further grant being received for him. But by a Minute introduced by the late Government, a child was permitted to be examined after he had passed the sixth standard in any subject which might be taught in the schools: and all that the present Government had in view, recognizing the peculiar circumstances of Scotland, was to extend the Minute of Mr. Corry, so that the further examination should not be confined to one year after passing the sixth standard. They would be very wrong, however, in consenting to that arrangement if they did not make ample provision to secure that the mass of the scholars should receive the elements of a good education, and so guard against the evils which undoubtedly existed before the introduction of the Revised Code.

  1787
  It was accordingly the intention of the Government, upon the framing of the new Code, to introduce a provision to the effect that payments for the higher subjects should be dependent on a certain number of passes having been obtained by the general body of scholars in the school; thereby guarding against any temptation to the master to neglect the great body of the scholars for the sake of the most advanced class.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 12 th of April.

  DESPATCH OF BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT.
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have ordered that the select committee appointed by them to join with the select committee appointed by this House on, do meet the committee of this House in the Painted Chamber this day at half past Three o'clock.
  Select Committee on, to meet forthwith.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday the 5th of April, a quarter before Five o'clock.