(NO. 11.) COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 10 May 1869 vol 196 cc429-66

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Argyll.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that this was the first opportunity he had had of offering any opinion on the measure, and he was desirous of taking advantage of the present occasion to do so. When the Bill was introduced by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), and on the Motion for the second reading, he (the Duke of Richmond) was unavoidably absent; but so much did he disapprove of the Bill, that he was anxious on this occasion to ask their Lordships to arrest its further progress, by declining to go into Committee upon it; but after consulting his Friends as to whether this would be the right course to pursue, he found them so greatly disinclined to that course, on the ground that they considered that the House was, as it were, pledged to go into Committee, that any proposition in a contrary sense would have the appearance of a breach of faith, that he reluctantly came to the conclusion not to oppose the Motion for going into Committee. But before their Lordships did so, he was anxious to state the views he entertained of the measure. There was no one, either in or out of the House, who would disagree with the Preamble of the Bill, which states its object to be "to extend and improve the parochial schools of Scotland, and to make further provision for the education of the people of Scotland." No one could disapprove of such an object as that. Everyone would concur that it was a most important one; but what he objected to was the mode in which the noble Duke sought to arrive at that result. He objected to the Bill both in its principle and in detail. Amongst other details, he objected to the constitution of the Central Board. He considered that a Board composed as was proposed by this Bill, of a number of gentlemen would be, to a great extent, entirely uncontrollable, and that practically the work would be left to the Chairman and Secretary. He objected, moreover, to the constitution and mode of appointing the school committees, because he believed if they were to be appointed as proposed by the Bill, the result would be endless squabbles and dissensions on a subject, which of all others was one on which there ought to be no quarrels and no squabbles—the religious education of the people. He objected also to the Bill, because in his mind it struck directly at the old parochial system of education in Scotland, which, in combination with the voluntary system, had hitherto worked so advantageously. He believed that the state of education in Scotland was by no moans unsatisfactory. He had always believed and had always been taught to connect the name of a Scotchman with education, and that to meet a Scotchman who was uneducated was most unusual. That the system in Scotland had not overtaken the whole population of the country he was ready to admit; but in all cases, and in all countries, there must be a residue of population which was not brought within the influence of education, and which could never be reached by anything short of compulsory education—the merits or demerits of which, however, he was not about to discuss. Now their Lordships were asked by this Bill to substitute for a system of education which had existed for 200 years an untried and doubtful system. They were asked to exchange a parochial system combined with a voluntary system for one universal compulsory rating system, thereby greatly increasing the burdens upon the people. If it could be shown that there was any necessity for such a change, then he should be prepared to admit that the exigencies of the case might warrant such a Bill as this of the noble Duke; but, in order to be perfectly sure that he was stating nothing that was not a fact, he would refer to the Report of the Commission over which the noble Duke himself presided, and would refer to what was said with respect to the attendance in the schools of Scotland. Now, if it he necessary to extend the system of education, it must be because the proportion of scholars who attend the schools was small; otherwise, he maintained that they had no ground for departing from the present system. Now he found it stated in this Report by the Assistant Commissioners, that the general result of the state of education in Scotland is that the proportion of 1 in 6 of the whole population was upon the books; and that the scholars in attendance are 1 in 7—a ratio which, taken by itself, was not unsatisfactory, although they admit that in certain parishes the attendance is not so satisfactory. They then compare the attendance in Scotland with the attendance in other countries. In Scotland, as he had said, it was 1 in 6.5 on the books, and the attendance 1 in 7.9; whereas in Prussia it is 1 in 6.27; so that the attendance in Scotland is very nearly the same, if not quite as large, as the attendance in Prussia, where the attendance is compulsory. In. England and Wales the attendance is 1 in 7.7; in Holland 1 in 8.11; and in France, 1 in 9; so that, so far, the attendance in Scotland can compare with any other country named by the Commissioners; but they add that the ratio in individual parishes was much less satisfactory. Referring to Returns obtained by the registrars, they made this re-mark— As far as these Returns indicated, it would appear that, whatever might be the case in individual districts, the want of schools was not so great as had been generally supposed. There will be fount in the Appendix a list of places appearing from these Returns to require additional school accommodation, but, for the most part, they are in the northern districts of the country; and the conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that, whatever may be the quality of the education, Scotland is well, if not adequately, supplied with teachers and places of instruction. The conclusion at which they arrived was this— On the whole, the impression produced by the description given to us by the Assistant Commissioners of the parish schools is that they are in a state of general efficiency, and that their condition, although susceptible of great improvement, is not unsatisfactory. But it is also quite clear that a parochial school system is utterly inadequate in extent to overtake the work for which it was intended, and which it ought to discharge, and that, were it not at this moment largely supplemented, the education of the people in Scotland would be greatly defective. That was the point. The present system was supplemented by voluntary efforts, and had, to this time, acted well in Scotland, providing a sufficient education for the people. He wanted to show that the present system was sufficient if properly carried out. But he wished to call the attention of the noble Duke to the opinion expressed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the voluntary system in Scotland. In a speech at Liverpool on the subject of education, at a meeting presided over by the Mayor, at the Town Hall, Mr. Lowe referred to the voluntary system. He said— All we should seek is to add to the present system, and as little as possible to disturb it. I don't wish to deceive you, gentlemen; it is true that whenever you do give a compulsory system side by side with a voluntary system, you do in some degree injure the voluntary system, A man who is promoting education and giving money for the purpose naturally says—'If I go on doing this I am quite welcome; but if I don't choose the Government will do it for me, and so I won't do it any more.' That is a very natural way of reasoning, and is, no doubt, the reasoning that the fact of placing a compulsory system side by side with the benevolent or voluntary system would create in any man's mind. The difficulty is how not to make that reasoning too cogent, so as to bring about a violent change; and my wish would be, if possible, to leave the existing schools standing entirely, and only to add to these schools where they are wanting. Rut, of course, there is this to be done, and I would say ought to be done. I am quite willing that all present denominational schools, founded on the voluntary principle, should remain where they are, I am quite willing; that new schools should be founded on the voluntary system, always subject to a Conscience Clause.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

That refers to England.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

Quite so. But he (the Duke of Richmond) maintained that the argument was equally applicable to Scotland, and that the whole tenour of the speech was in favour of maintaining the voluntary system. It seemed to him that the Episcopalians and Roman Catholics of Scotland would be most injuriously affected by this Bill; for, by an ingenious contrivance, under the 20th and 68th clauses, they would be starved into compliance with its provisions, and would thus be placed in a much worse position than that which they were entitled to occupy. There was another point—the financial basis of the scheme—winch he considered the very essence of the Bill, and on which they ought to require from the noble Duke some explanation. He alluded more particularly to that portion of the Bill which fixes the maximum rate at 3d. in the pound. He would ask how was the noble Duke going to measure the amount of education which he would have to give to any parish? Would he measure it by the amount of education that was required by the parish, or by the amount of education that the 3d. in the pound would afford. Supposing, for instance, a parish required three schoolmasters, whose salaries shall have reached £60, he would have to say to it—"It is true your education ought to cost £60, but as the 3d. rate will only bring £50, you must content yourselves with an inferior education, because you cannot afford to pay for a better." On the other hand, in some parishes the rate might produce more than the sum required It was provided that a 3d. rate should be the maximum sum in any one year; but if this rate be so, he did not see how they were to get out of debt. There might be some contrivance by which the noble Duke could got them out of debt; but at this moment he did not understand how it could be done. This 3d. rate clause had created a great deal of interest and surprise in Scotland; but he would refer for a moment to a paper which had probably been sent to the noble Duke for the purpose of showing the inadequacy of the 3d. rate in the Highland parishes. There were some details which he would not go into; but the conclusion they showed was that out of 154 parishes in the Highland and island parishes, the rate would be inadequate in seventy-one. He had also observed a remarkable statement with reference to the parishes of Tongue and Farr, and that part of Reay situate in the county of Sutherland. The annual expenditure on parish and General Assembly schools, irrespective of school fees and Government grants, was £366 13s. 2d., and on Free Church schools £227, giving a total of £593 13s. 2d., whereas a rate of 3d. in the pound would only raise £136 1s. 9d., or allowing for inevitable deductions, only about £100. In Aberdeenshire a 3d. rate would produce only £20 for each school, whereas the amount at present contributed was £50, the attendance being one in six. At Fraser-burgh the interest on the capital sums expended through private benevolence within the last twenty years in the erection of denominational schools was £200 per annum, and the annual voluntary subscriptions £200 more, making a total of 6d. in the pound on the present rental, and the attendance was one in five of the population. If Fraserburgh were deprived of the voluntary system, he did not see how the requisite amount was to be made up; and the same remark applied to Aberdeenshire. There was another point to which he wished to refer. The noble Puke (the Duke of Argyll) stated on a former occasion that public feeling in Scotland was favourable to the Bill, or, at all events, that he did not anticipate any difficulty as to its principle. This opinion, however, seemed to him (the Duke of Richmond) a mistaken one. The ironmasters, for instance, who clearly were a body of gentlemen not inconsiderable in numbers or importance, had presented a Petition, urging that to get their schools adopted would involve conditions that could not be undertaken, since, having regard to the minerals underneath the sites, and to those sites being generally connected with the works, it would be inconvenient to place them under the control of a public Board. They were convinced, moreover— That the Bill, if passed, would, at no distant date, lead to purely secular teaching; and they strongly objected to such a subversion of the intended uses of the buildings. These matters had been forced upon their attention by the introduction of the Bill; and the consequent consideration of the subject had led to these views. Like consideration is gradually leading others also to prefer the encouragement and better development of the existing system to an untried system fraught with the above and other evils. Then, again, the Acting Committee of the Church of Scotland, who ought to know something of the educational wants of the country, had pointed out in a Petition that the Bill made no provision for religious instruction, that it tended to extinguish the denominational system and all local effort, and that while the parochial schools afforded a good education to more than a fourth of the inhabitants of the landward districts, their deficiencies were to a great extent supplied by various religious denominations and individual heritors or owners of public works. The Committee added— The deficiencies are reported to be, not a want of schools to any marked extent, but only inferior school buildings (in many oases), a want of certificated teachers, and need of inspection. In these circumstances it appears most inexpedient to introduce a Bill involving large rating powers, and other consequences much to be deprecated, for the purpose of remedying evils that could be easily met under the present system. Through the courtesy of the noble Duke in consenting, on the appeal of his noble Friend (the Duke of Marlborough). to post pone the Committee on the Bill until after the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply the opinions of those important bodies had been expressed and, as a sample of a great number of them, he would refer to the Petition of the Commissioners of Supply of the county of Lanark. After remarking that 72 per cent of the children attending school were being educated at voluntarily-supported schools, they came to this conclusion— That on the whole your Petitioners consider the extensive alterations proposed by the Bill to be unnecessary and uncalled-for, and to be such as can do little good, and may do much injury, to the educational interests of Scotland, while they will increase the burden of local taxation to a very large extent. The Commissioners of the counties of Inverness, Aberdeen, Renfrew, Dumfries, Ayr, Linlithgow, Edinburgh, and Haddington had also petitioned against the Bill; while those who had petitioned partially in its favour suggested such important modifications that were they carried out the noble Duke would hardly be able to recognize the measure. As far as he had been able to ascertain nineteen county meetings were opposed to the Bill, while at six no action was taken or the subject was referred to sub-committees, and as to eight nothing could be stated. The Free Church was by no means unanimous in favour of the Bill, for the Free Church presbyteries of Aberdeen and Ayr had petitioned against it; while those of Glasgow, Dundee, Chanonry, Garioch, and Lockerbie, as well as the Synod of Ross, wished for amendments, the absence of provision for religious teaching being one of the objections. He hoped he had now stated sufficient to explain why he entertained his views as to this Bill. He had shown that the school attendance was not unsatisfactory, that the condition of the parochial schools was efficient, and that the Bill would dry up the large amount provided by voluntary efforts. He had shown that the Commissioners of Supply in many of the counties were entirely opposed to the measure, while the great majority were opposed to material parts of it, and the Education Committee of the Church of Scotland, as well as several Free Church congregations, were also opposed to it. He contended that the present system should be upheld and extended, and that the voluntary system which had so long flourished should be encouraged, and that, above all, a system which provided religious instruction should be maintained. To quote the concluding paragraph of a work by a minister of the Established Church, which ably summed up the case— I believe that the question comes to this as regards religion—Shall we have a denominational system as at present, and Christian instruction, or an undenominational, as the Act provides, and, in the course of not very many years, secularism—such secularism as consists not in the utter banishment of Christianity from oar schools, but in its banishment from the sphere which it has hitherto occupied in our national education as a basis of school training, and the supreme rule of conduct? The loss of Christian instruction in our schools would be a disastrous event to the country, but still more the loss of that religious spirit which our present system tends to infuse into the up-bringing of the young. 'Godly up-bringing,' our fathers called it; and to the element of religion which they introduced in Scotland, and which they faithfully preserved, is mainly due to the greatness of our country.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he must admit that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), holding such opinions on this Bill, was fully entitled to express them at the present stage; but he must not think it was from any want of respect if he declined to follow him in discussing the general principles of the measure. The greater part of the noble Duke's speech had, however, referred to points on which he thought he should be able to offer full explanations in Committee; and he hoped also to be able to show that the noble Duke's argument with regard to finance and to the ironmasters was not well founded. He (the Duke of Argyll) however wished to refer to one matter only. The noble Duke had told them that his first intention was to persuade the House to refuse to go into Committee on the Bill, but that Friends whom he had consulted had advised him that such an almost contemptuous rejection of the Bill would amount to a breach of faith. For his own part he (the Duke of Argyll) thought it would be much more than that. For, considering the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced in this rather than in the other House, and the feeling which he believed existed among the Scotch Members, who, after all represented the national feeling more than Presbyteries or even Commissioners of Supply did, it would have been most detrimental to the character and reputation of the House if it had not shown a willingness, and even a desire, to go into a full discussion of the details of the measure. He hoped the House would not expect him to say more until they got into Committee.

LORD CAIRNS

said, there were many details of the Bill which might be better considered in Committee; at the same time there were some matters which were left open for explanation on a previous occasion, and as to which he thought their Lordships should have some explanation now. The noble Duke, in introducing the Bill, expressed an opinion that it would be largely acceptable in Scotland, and that, although it might not meet with universal approval, it would be accepted, throughout the country, as a compromise of a very difficult question. Their Lordships probably shared that anticipation, and had it been verified they would have been spared much labour and anxiety. But as far as he (Lord Cairns) could judge these expectations had been by no means realized; for, as it seemed to him, in Scotland, the Bill had encountered by no means so favourable a reception as the House were led to expect. Large bodies of persons were altogether opposed to it; and even those who to some extent approved it asked for important amendments, hardly any two of them agreeing as to the amendments they required. The consequence is that, taking only the Petitions that are in favour of the Bill, there was hardly any part of the measure which one or other of the Petitions did not ask for an alteration in, and this rendered it difficult for the House to decide how this important question could best be settled. There was one point which went to the root of the Bill—the turning point on which the rest must hinge—he meant of course the financial question; and at an earlier stage he expressed a hope that, at a subsequent stage, the Government would state the grounds on which they believed a maximum rate of 3d. in the pound would suffice to work the machinery of the Bill. Before going into Committee the House ought to know how far that estimate could be relied upon. Now, his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had quoted a very remarkable statement, showing that in seventy-one out of 154 Highland and island parishes a 3d. rate would be wholly inadequate—the rate, moreover, being most inadequate in the very parishes where it was most wanted. [The Duke of ARGYLL said he was prepared to show in Committee the fallacy of these statistics.] No doubt the noble Duke would be prepared to give some explanation—but, as an. example, he might take the case of Jura and Colonsay. A 3d. rate would, according to this statement, produce £69 15s. 7d., while the necessary expenses of the various schools, allowing for Privy Council grants, would show a deficiency of £364, so that not only a rate of 3d. would not be sufficient, but even a 1s. rate would be insufficient. There were many other cases of the same kind. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Government; for, on the second reading, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) referred to it as a point on which the Government might be induced to change their opinion. The principle of the Bill was to reduce, so far as possible, all the schools of Scotland to the one uniform level, which might be described as the level of the new national schools. There were three different classes of schools. First, there was the well-known old parochial schools; in the second place, there were the schools supported mainly by voluntary contributions and receiving also the Council grant; and, thirdly, there was the class of new national schools to be supported by rate. Now, the mode adopted by this Bill to reduce the two first classes to the same position as the third, was a process of what might be termed rewards and punishments. If the heritors would agree to place the parochial schools under the new system, instead of the upper heritors only being rated, the rate would be spread over the whole body of heritors; but if they did not entirely submit to the new regulations they would still be liable to an order to re-build the school or master's house, for which they would be rated on the old principle. Then, again, if the denominational schools did not, within twelve months, come in as "adopted" schools they would forfeit the Government grants—a severe penalty, which would extinguish many if not all of them. They might be brought in and remain subject to the old management; but, in that case, they wore not to share in the rate and would only receive Government assistance, while the liability to an order to re-build the school or master's house would remain. The result of this would be to establish a system different from that which existed, or had even been suggested in any other part of the United Kingdom. The systems which had been tried were these—In England large public grants were made to schools connected with various denominations; in Ireland to schools complying with certain conditions, the managers being allowed to add religious education at separate hours from the secular instruction, so that no child might be forced to receive the kind of religious instruction of which his parents disapprove; a purely secular system had likewise been advocated, the rate being applied for the general education of a parish or district, and no religious instruction being given. The present proposal differed from all these; for though there was no provision with regard to religious education, its principle was this, that the majority of any parish, represented by the school committee, were to decide whether any religious instruction should be given in all the schools supported by the rate, and of what kind that instruction was to be. It was therefore, a denominational system, with this peculiarity—that the denominational character which the education was to assume was to be fixed by the majority of the parish, represented by the local committee. What was to become of the minority? That was a most important element in the Bill, and it ought to be fully considered Toy Parliament. In this country the minority were under the denominational system perfectly protected, and they had their religious training as completely provided for as the majority had theirs. So also in Ireland, except in cases where the minority were so exceptionally small in numbers as not to warrant a separate school. By this Bill, however, all the inhabitants of the parish were to be taxed alike, but with this difference—that the majority were to have their religious education, but that the minority were not to have theirs. Let their Lordships observe the consequence. There were parishes in Scotland where the minority were Roman Catholics; there were others in which the minority were Episcopalians; but there were others in which the minority were Presbyterians. He knew some parishes in Invernessshire, and he believed there were some in Aberdeen-shire, where the Roman Catholics were in the majority, and others in which the Presbyterians were also certainly in the minority. Suppose the two cases occurred side by side, the Roman Catholics being in a majority in one parish and the Presbyterians in the adjoining parish. How would they justify a state of things in which both were to be taxed alike, but in which the children of one sect would go to the school of the majority and receive a religious training according to the wishes of their parents, but the children of the minority must go to a school where they would either receive no religious instruction at all, or such instruction as their parents must disapprove of. He understood the noble Duke to say that he would provide by the Bill that, along with these national schools, there should be continued, not only for a certain time but always, public grants for other denominational schools. That might in some measure obviate the difficulty; but he owned that the system appeared to require very serious consideration. The Preamble of the Bill declared that it was desirable that the present system of parochial schools in Scotland should be extended, enlarged, and improved. He confessed, however, that he had not been able to find anything in the Bill that would extend, enlarge, and improve the present system of parochial schools in Scotland. On the contrary, he saw that the Bill from the beginning to the end tended to put an end to the parochial schools of Scotland. That country was famous for the education given in these schools, and one of the greatest calamities that could befall Scotland would be that this education should be impaired. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that the parochial schools of Scotland were merely primary or elementary schools. In many districts they supplied the place of middle-class schools and seminaries. There could be no doubt that the Universities of Scotland were largely recruited from her parochial schools; and young men who had highly distinguished themselves had often proceeded direct from these schools to the Universities. It was proposed by the Bill to bring these schools under the direction and management of local school committees, chosen half by the occupiers and half by the heritors. The present-system of management had been extremely advantageous, and had led to the celebrity and distinction of these parochial schools. Was it certain they would improve under the management of local school committees? What was the experience of such committees? In the Report of the Schools Commission there appeared an interesting statement from the Sub Commissioner, who reported upon the state of the schools of Canada and the United States, which were under the management of local committees. He said that in Upper Canada, whore the trustees were men who took an interest in the schools, and were really competent to discharge their duties, there was no room for complaint. In many places, however, and especially in some rural districts, the trustees did not enter the school more than once a year. He had heard that some of these managers could hardly write their own names, and were quite illiterate. One of the Canadian superintendents told the Assistant Commissioner that the great body of the school managers were remiss in the performance of their duties through an entire ignorance of the nature of those duties. For anything to the contrary in this Bill, the whole of the school committees who were to manage the parochial schools might be men who could neither read nor write. Was it desirable to hand over schools so efficient and so celebrated to a management of that kind? But that was not all. He observed that it was proposed by the Schedule that due care should be taken that the existing standard of education should not be lowered, and that, as far as possible, as high a standard should be maintained as in all the national schools of Scotland. Did that mean that the same average standard should be maintained as to the whole of the elementary education, or that the standard which now existed in the elementary and secondary schools should be kept up. These were questions not arising from any particular clauses, but which were well worthy the consideration of their Lordships. They were asked to take a step which, tinder certain checks and provisions, might be advantageous, but which was a step of the gravest importance to Scotland, and a mistake might produce evils which every person connected with Scotland would regret.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he would not follow the speech of the noble and learned Lord—indeed he feared they were getting into an irregular discussion. The question before their Lordships was whether they should go into Committee on this Bill or not. As far as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) was concerned he was perfectly justified in the speech he had addressed to their Lordships, because being unavoidably absent he had had no opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill on the second reading, and therefore he had fairly availed himself of the present occasion. The noble Duke stated that it was originally his intention to move that the Bill be committed that day three months, but that, on consulting with his Friends on his side of the House, he had determined not to oppose the Motion to go into Committee. The noble Duke, however, could not have consulted with the noble and learned Lord who had just delivered so strong and emphatic an address against the principle of the Bill. He put it to the noble and learned Lord whether, in the position which he occupied, he was not incurring the risk of establishing a most inconvenient precedent by debating over again the principle of a Bill on the Motion for going into Committee upon it. He trusted that their Lordships would proceed in the ordinary course; because he was certain that the noble Duke who had charge of the Bill would be quite ready to discuss every question and every detail when the particular clause came before their Lordships in Committee.

LORD COLONSAY

said, he thought that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had chosen the most convenient moment for offering to their Lordships the general observations which suggested themselves to his mind. He thought the noble Duke ought now to give some sort of explanation as to the grounds upon which the rate that had been fixed had appeared to be a sufficient one.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that the paper to which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had referred had been circulated among their Lordships within the last few days only. It was drawn up nominally by the General Assembly's committee, but really by Mr. Laurie, their secretary. When the paper came into his hands he saw in an instant that the whole statement proceeded on a fallacy, and he referred it to the Financial Secretary of the Privy Council, who had prepared a statement in reply to it, which he would lay on the table that evening. He should be prepared to show that the calculations of the noble and learned Lord were vitally fallacious. Mr. Laurie assumed that new school buildings would be required for every existing school, however small. With regard to the parishes with which he (the Duke of Argyll) was acquainted, every item of Mr. Laurie's finance was absolutely erroneous. The finance of the scheme had been gone into most carefully by the Commissioners, who had a full knowledge of all the facts of the case, and they certainly were not likely to make the gross blunders alleged by Mr. Laurie. The calculation on which the Bill was based was that the 3d. rate, supplemented by double Privy Council grants, and the fees varying from 4s. to 5s. and 6s., would give £I a head for every scholar, which would be amply sufficient for the poorest parish in Scotland.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

had some reason to know that the statement made by the Privy Council Office had reference to the salaries given to female teachers under the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The average salary of uncertificated female teachers was £41. Their number was not throe, as stated, but seventeen, and therefore £15 or £16 was required to be added to each; in other words, about £300 was required to be added for the entire number of female teachers, and to raise the number of uncertificated male teachers to the average of £55 would take a sum of £1,150.

After a few words from the Duke of MONTROSE,

Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1 (Interpretation Clause).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he wished to make a very few observations with respect to the Central Board. He had not placed on the Paper any notice of Amendment with regard to the constitution of that Board; but other noble Lords had done so. One of the Amendments of which notice had been given by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay), adopted the principle of an elective Board; but with the addition of certain members; the object being that the proportion of members who represented the ratepaying interest, as compared with the purely professional members should be increased. Now, if the House preferred the elective principle, he (the Duke of Argyll) should be ready to accept his noble and learned Friend's Amendment. But, besides that Amendment, two suggestions had been made on his own side of the House, pointing to the conclusion that the Board should not be elective but nominated. Now without at all desiring to give any pledge as to the course which the Government might take in "another place," where possibly another view might be taken of this particular part of the Bill, he wished to say that, if in the opinion of a majority of the Scotch Members of their Lordships' House, it should be considered that a nominated Board would be preferable he should be prepared to bring up a clause on the Report, substituting a nominated for an elective Board. He said this with the view of saving a considerable amount of discussion. Of course, in regard to the payment of the members, he could not enter into that question. He did not wish to go to the. Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him to put his hand into his pocket too often; or to act on the advice given to the late Sir George Sinclair by one of his constituents immediately after he had been elected for Caithness—"Now, my advice to you, Sir George is—be aye take-taking what ye can get, and be aye seek-seeking till ye get mair."

LORD CAIRNS

wished to know if he rightly understood that the arrangement proposed by the noble Duke was without prejudice to the course which the Government might take in "another place" [The Duke of ARGYLL: Yes.] He never heard of such a proposal—that the Government should make a proposal to their Lordships' House and hold themselves at liberty to make a different proposal to the other House of Parliament.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, it was possible that another view might be taken of this matter by the House of Commons. He did not attach great importance to the principle, and was prepared to make the Board nominated instead of elective; it was a mere point of detail. He hoped the discussion would be conducted in a temperate spirit, and that advantage would not be taken of a single expression with a view to give this the appearance of a party discussion.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

assured the noble Duke that no one could approach this question with a greater desire for fairness and moderation than himself; but he must point out the very great inconsistency of the tone adopted by the noble Duke. Had, or had not, the Government made up their minds on the Bill now under discussion? It was a Bill brought in by the noble Duke on the authority of the Government, at an early period of the Session. The noble Duke described it as a very good Bill, which ought to pass; but, possibly some of his Colleagues might ultimately not agree with him, and the fate of the Bill would depend, not on what he thought, but on what his Colleagues in "another place" thought. This, however, ought to have been decided long ago. It was not respectful to the House that the Government should introduce a Bill on which they had not made up their minds, and then say—"We are ready to assent to a modification of the Bill in the House of Lords, but we will not promise to adhere to it in the House of Commons." If the noble Duke in this House adopted an alteration of the Bill, substituting one arrangement for another, he was bound, and his Colleagues in the other House also were bound, to adhere to that alteration.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

thought the noble Duke who had just spoken took a somewhat unusual view of the duty of the Government, because he said that, after having come to a determination on the details of the Bill, they ought, if the House changed any of those details, to adhere to their own decision. Now, if his noble Friend had said that he would adhere to every detail whatever might be the decision of their Lordships, he would justly have been obnoxious to the charge of assuming a dictatorial tone. What he understood his noble Friend to say was that, if it should be the opinion of the House that a nominated Board would be preferable to an elected Board, he would be prepared, in deference to the opinion of the House on a point which he did not deem important, to accept an Amendment to that effect. His noble Friend added that the question was one in respect to which the other House might have an opinion of its own, and might approve a scheme different from that approved by their Lordships' House.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

wished to point out to their Lordships that a grave constitutional principle was involved in the principle laid down by the noble Duke the Secretary for India, for it appeared that if there should be a general concurrence of opinion among their Lordships as to the principle of the appointment of the Central Board, he was prepared to adopt it; but if the other House did not think the change advisable he would be prepared to abandon it. The noble Duke was bound to have brought the matter under the consideration of his Colleagues, and to have obtained their sanction to a precise course; for it would be extremely inconvenient, after the Bill had passed their Lordships' House, to have it brought back again, at a time when the attendance of their Lordships would be comparatively thin, with their Lordships' decision reversed on this particular point.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

said, he thought that his noble Friend the Secretary for India had made a very fair proposal. He said that if, with regard to the constitution of the Board, their Lordships should prefer nomination to election, he should accept it; but he said it was very probable that the other House might take a different view. He had heard it stated that the Bill was unpopular in Scotland, but having taken the pains to ascertain the opinion of the different great bodies in that country, he found that the great majority of them, though they might differ as to the details of the measure, agreed in approving its principle.

LORD KINNAIRD

observed that the noble Duke the Secretary for India had only said that, as there were to be paid members on the Board, the constitution of the Board must in a great measure depend on the sanction of the House of Commons and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would suggest that the Amendments respecting the constitution of the Board might be considered on the Report.

LORD CAIRNS

said, the Amendment to convert the Board into a nominated Board might now be passed, if the noble Duke the Secretary for India were satisfied that the Government approved it. Of course, the Government could not promise that the House of Commons would support the Amendment; but it was to be expected that the Members representing the Government in that House would support it. It would be proper that their Lordships should know whether the Board was to be paid or not, because upon this question might depend the efficiency of the Board, and what was to be proposed in the other House of Parliament, by way of payment. He did not see that there would be any difficulty in letting their Lordships know the view of the Government upon this subject.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he would agree to bring up a clause on the Report, substituting a nominated Board for an elected Board.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 14, relating to constitution of "the Board of Education" struck out: and two clauses, moved by Lord KINNAIRD, inserted in lieu thereof. The new clauses provide that "The Board of Education for Scotland" shall consist of three persons to be appointed by Her Majesty by writing under the hand of a Secretary of State; and of a Secretary, to be appointed in like manner.

Clauses 15, 16, 17 (Parochial Schools).

Clause 15 (Parochial and Parliamentary Schools shall be "old national schools" and shall continue to be managed as at present) agreed to.

Clause 16 (Union of Parochial Schools).

LORD ABINGER moved an Amendment that "it shall be lawful for the school committee or heritors to employ any teacher in any school within the bounds of their parish so long as they pay the salary as above."

Amendment agreed, to.

Clause 17 (Side schools) agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 26 (Power to adopt or erect Schools).

Clause 18 (Board to fix as to each parish or burgh the number of schools required) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Board with the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury, may appoint special commissioners) agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved that the clause be struck out. He objected to the appointment of special commissioners to do the work of the Board. There should be an efficient Board appointed, and let them do their own work.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that one of the most important duties which the commissioners would have to decide would be the geographical position of the schools. It would never do for the Board to be travelling all over the country to settle that to the neglect of other duties. It was essential the Board should have power to appoint special commissioners to do that work and report to them.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, there would be a great deal of special work to be got through the first two or three years after the Act came into operation, and therefore it would be desirable to give powers to appoint persons to attend to it. When that work ceased their Lordships might rely upon it some one would in the other House object to the continuance of the salaries as a charge on the Estimates.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Board with the sanction of the majority of the trustees, managers, or proprietors, of any school, may adopt any school).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that as this was a most important clause, he desired to say a few words upon it. But he would first reply to the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns). Their Lordships would remember what he had said in introducing this Bill, and also upon other occasions, when the subject of education had been under discussion. He had never entertained a strong opinion against the denominational system of education,—on the contrary, he had always thought that many advantages accrued from the young being educated in connection with definite sys- terns of religious belief. But the Commission which sat in Scotland came to the conclusion that it was desirable to put an end to denominational schools for the future, mainly on two grounds—first, because, as conducted under Privy Council grants, denominational schools were incapable of occupying the whole field of education; and, secondly, because, as far as Scotland was concerned, such schools were wholly unnecessary for the security of religious teaching. Those were the two grounds—one of them arising out of a general principle, and the other out of the peculiar circumstances of Scotland—upon which that body came to the conclusion that denominational schools ought to be stopped. As regards the first point, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had read some extracts from the Report of the Commissioners which were in favour of the denominational system; but the House would probably come to the conclusion that the noble Duke had culled his extracts in such a manner as not fully to represent the matured opinion of the Commissioners, who, in point of fact, arrived at the conclusion that the continuance of the denominational system was unnecessary in Scotland. He would read to the House certain other paragraphs, showing clearly the opinion of the Commissioners as to the inadequacy of the denominational system to undertake the education of the country. That inadequacy had, indeed, been proved both in the rural districts and in the great cities. He could speak from experience as to the rural districts, and could assert that, as regards those parts of the county with which he was acquainted, it had been a complete failure. The very principle of it was, in fact, to give to the rich, and to withhold from the poor. When the system was brought forward by his Friend the late Lord Lansdowne and Sir John Kay Shuttle-worth, he expressed his opinion that, if positive rules were not laid down as to geographical distribution, the grants would be hurtful rather than beneficial to the country. Unfortunately, the Privy Council did not then think themselves strong enough to act upon that advice. They were obliged to give grants where-ever they Mere asked for by religious bodies. The Commissioners, however, pointed out that in the poorest counties, where the population was sparse, there was a very small amount of Privy Council grants, the percentage being highest in the richest counties and smallest in the poorest counties. The evidence was conclusive, therefore, that the system was not calculated to provide for the educational wants of the country. In their Report the Commissioners said— From these facts it is abundantly clear, not only that the system of Privy Council grants is partial in its operation, but that while those districts which are most competent to provide themselves with schools receive considerable aid for this purpose from the Treasury, those districts which are less competent to contribute for schools receive little or no aid. There was also in the Report a paragraph referring to Glasgow, drawn up by no less distinguished a personage than the late Mr. Cook, the Procurator of the Church of Scotland. It was as follows:— In the meantime are observe that these facts prove that the voluntary system has hitherto proved utterly inadequate to effect the education of the masses of the population in our large towns. As far as the principle of supply and demand can operate in such a matter it might be expected to operate in Glasgow as fully as anywhere, and it has done so. There is no want in that city of schools, where an education of a high class can be got at an adequate price by those who wish for it; but more than this, there is no reason to doubt that Christian zeal and benevolence have operated as freely in Glasgow as they can be expected to do anywhere in providing a sound education, well adapted to the real wants of the lower orders. Sessional schools, under the management of the kirk-session of the Established and Free Churches, are to be found in every district, and, with few exceptions, are admirable schools. There are, besides, many endowed and free or charity schools in the city; and all of these, as well as the sessional and mission schools, are doing much good. But all of these schools are far short of providing the necessary accommodation for the numbers who ought to be at school. He believed that in Glasgow—one of the largest cities in the kingdom, where the merchants were distinguished by their liberality, and the religious bodies by their Christian zeal—it was a notorious fact that the denominational system had completely failed to provide for the educational wants of the locality. He wished to draw attention to another important point. Where the denominational system of education really existed, it was perfectly useless as regarded the religious instruction of the people. The evidence given before the Commissioners was to this effect—that the children of all Churches, without exception, repaired to the parish schools, or to the Episcopalian schools, or to the United Presbyterian schools, or to any other schools where they could get the best education. The parents did not care one whit as to the religious denomination of the school, provided their children obtained good secular education there. Of course, while the Shorter Catechism teas taught in all the parish schools to all children of the different Presbyterian denominations, the Roman Catholic children were specially exempted from instruction in that catechism. His noble Friend on the Bench below (the Earl of Denbigh) had made a special appeal in respect to the case of the Roman Catholics. Now many of their Lordships might not, perhaps, be aware of it, but it was nevertheless the fact that not only was there a very large number of Irish and other Roman Catholics congregated in our great cities, but there were certain districts in Scotland where the population were still mainly Roman Catholics. That was the case especially in the Hebrides, in some of which group of islands as many as five-sixths of the inhabitants were Roman Catholics. Yet there was not a single Roman Catholic school there: and why? Because the Roman Catholic priesthood had perfect confidence in the education given in the parish schools. Many years ago, when much excitement existed in Scotland in relation to the measure of 1829 for the removal of the disabilities of the Roman Catholics, a ''direction" was issued by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that, in all cases, the children of Roman Catholic parents were to be allowed the free use of the parish schools without any injunction being laid on them to go through the religious instruction. And so fully had the Roman Catholic population benefited by that direction, that without difficulty, and without the loss of a single family, as he had heard, to the communion of the Church, they had uniformly resorted to the nearest parish school for the education of their children. With regard to the Episcopalians, he had a remarkable Return, showing that in their case also it was utterly unnecessary that there should be any special denominational schools for the instruction of their children. The figures given before the Commissioners were very remarkable. Out of 6,000 scholars attending the Episcopalian schools, only 1,920 belonged to their own communion, while the rest, or about 4,000, belonged to other religious communions; and the vast majority of the Episcopalian children—a mere fraction of the total number of children in Scotland—were educated in the parish and other Presbyterian schools. Therefore, in respect to the giving of instruction in connection with the various religious bodies in Scotland, the evidence was overwhelming that it was not required, either by the wants of the country or the prevailing feeling of the people, and that no disposition existed on the part of the people to send their children only to schools exclusively confined to their own religious denomination. Of course he admitted that when they went higher than elementary education, and what were called the "three R.'s," there might, in some cases, be danger of proselytism; but he believed that the conduct of the parish schools of Scotland had been highly honourable in that respect. With regard to the security for religious education, it was supposed that at this moment by law the Shorter Catechism had to be taught in the parish schools. There was, in fact, no such law whatever. In any parish the heritors might exclude the Shorter Catechism from the course of instruction. Up to 1861 there was a nominal connection between the parish schools and the ecclesiastical judicature of the Church, but since that date even that connection has been severed; the jurisdiction was absolutely removed from the presbyteries of the Church to the sheriffs of the county, and there was no statutory provision for religious education. The only condition of that kind was as to the master of the parish school. In 1861, when the test of membership in the Established Church was repealed, it was provided that the schoolmaster should make a declaration that he would not teach anything contrary to the Shorter Catechism. Nothing in the present Bill did away with that proviso, which would remain in force precisely as it now stood. Again, the maintenance of a denominational system was not easily reconciled with the principle of schools supported by rates. Supposing in any parish it was determined by the inhabitants, in conjunction with the Board, to establish a school supported by them, the school might be very flourishing; but in a few years a rival school might be set down alongside of it, rendering nugatory all the burdens they had laid on them; and that rival school might be assisted by large grants, It was obvious that the two systems could not be carried on together, except during a period of transition. Practically that Bill provided that during a period of transition both the parish schools should continue as they were, and the denominational schools also where they were required by geographical circumstances, and were working well. That was a most rational compromise to be recommended by the Commissioners as between rival parties. With respect to the state of feeling in Scotland, he had had full confidence in the reception of the measure in that country, because the Commission was composed of eminent men representing all parties, and he had some reason to believe that if the late Government had continued in Office, a measure like this would have been introduced by their Lord Advocate. The House would do him the justice to remember that he concluded his speech on bringing forward the Bill by an appeal to the various religious bodies in Scotland, to waive the extreme and exaggerated stress which might be laid on some individual points for the sake of arriving at the great general result which would be desirable in the true interests of the country. There had been some Petitions presented against the Bill from the Presbyterian Synods, and some from the Commissioners of Supply—very respectable bodies, certainly; but there had been none from any great meeting of the people of Scotland. His belief was that the great mass of the laity were deeply interested in the success of the Bill, and viewed with extreme jealousy any measures taken to procure its defeat. Several deputations from Scotland waited upon him, one deputation asking for a change in one direction, and another deputation for a change in another. He asked them all whether they desired that the Bill should be given up if their particular views were not carried out? The answer invariably was that they were not prepared for that, and that they were anxious that the Bill, in any case, might pass looking upon the present clause as an important corollary of the Bill, he hoped that it would be agreed to in its present shape.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

said, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had quoted some passages of the Report to show that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the denominational system was inadequate to supply the educational wants of the people of Scotland, and that it was unnecessary under the actual circumstances. There were, however, contradictory statements on this subject in the Report of the Commissioners, and in the speech of the noble Duke which was founded on it, which greatly puzzled him. The great preponderance of opinion in the Report recognized the value and importance of voluntary efforts in promoting the education of the people of Scotland at the present time, and the great injury to Scotland if anything should quench or destroy the operation of that system. The Commissioners recognized the great importance of all existing schools, and said that they were all wanted. But, because the denominational system did not altogether supply the wants of Scotland, the noble Duke would put an end to it and drive it away altogether, as a system which ought not to exist side by side with a national system of education. There was, however, no authority in the Report for proceeding on an assumption of that kind. Did it follow that because a system was deficient they were to sweep it away altogether? The noble Duke in his previous speech admitted that the existing schools were necessary, and that the Commissioners said they were. In the poorer districts the power of the Government was to be called in to provide schools; but it was unreasonable to contend that schools should not be allowed to remain in existence in the richer districts where they were supported by voluntary contributions. It appeared from the Report that out of 4,451 schools in the rural districts, 1,133 were parochial schools, and 910 adventure schools—leaving 2,408 which were supported by voluntary efforts. The Commissioners reported that for the most part these schools were all wanted, and that they represented a large amount of individual, local, and religious energy; and they say that to desert this system, with all its advantages, would be extravagance; while to leave things as they were would be to perpetuate defects. The noble Duke asserted that the denominational system was inadequate to supply the wants of Scotland; but he (the Duke of Marlborough) thought it was proved from the Report, that with the exception of certain barren and desolate tracts of country, it had raised the standard of rural education as high as in Prussia. The fallacy of the noble Duke's argument lay in this—that because the denominational system was admitted to contain certain defects, therefore it must be altogether exterminated. He did not know what authority the noble Duke had for this proceeding—he certainly did not obtain it from his Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had expressed his opinion in favour of retaining the voluntary system where it existed. The noble Duke said that religious rivalry had created schools in superfluous situations. But in introducing the Bill he said that though religious rivalry had produced numerous schools they were not too numerous for the wants of the country, except, perhaps, in one or two instances. Then the noble Duke commented on the evils of the denominational system in procuring educational grants for the richer parts of the country and not for the poorer. But he (the Duke of Marlborough) thought the object of the Bill was to correct that evil, because under it Commissioners would go about the country to mark educational deficiencies, and the power of the Government would be put in force, wherever there was a deficiency, to call upon the locality to provide schools. The noble Duke, in bringing in the Bill, laid great stress upon the labours of the early Reformers: but what was the essential characteristic of the system of education they supported? It was the denominational and national system—because they knew that in promoting the denominational system they secured the religious character of education. He would ask their Lordships to consider what was the amount of money raised under these denominational efforts. The Commissioners stated that of the 4,451 schools in Scotland 1,133 were parochial schools, 910 were adventure schools, and 1,500 were in receipt of Privy Council grants and voluntary subscriptions to the amount of £42,077. There were, in addition, 2,408 schools which were not supported by Privy Council grants, and which depended entirely on voluntary subscriptions. The Bill would, therefore, inflict considerable discouragement upon voluntary effort, which would be pro tanto a great misfortune to the coun- try. The Commissioners recognized the great importance of dealing with denominational schools, and thought it necessary to place them in a medium position, which they did by calling them "adopted schools." Would it not be sound policy to allow these voluntary bodies to have this small modicum of encouragement? The Bill, however, as it stood, impolitically and churlishly prevented these schools from taking advantage of the Privy Council grant or the rate if they were established two years after the passing of the Act.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last person that ought to be quoted in favour of denominational schools, as he had persistently been opposed to voluntary effort supplemented by Privy Council grants, and was always in favour of the rating principle. The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) argued as if voluntary effort was a good thing in itself; but for his part he (the Earl of Airlie) could not help regarding the national system of education, based on rates to which every one contributed his proper share, as greatly preferable to any system which depended on the efforts of a few benevolent individuals contributing more than their fair quota, and supplemented by grants from the Treasury. The result of that system was that the poor were taxed to educate those in a richer district who could very well afford to pay for their own education. To argue in favour of the denominational system was. in his view, to oppose the true principle of the Bill. The deputations who had come to London on this subject, so far as he had been able to learn, had expressed themselves strongly in favour of the national, as opposed to the denominational system. The adoption of the proposed Amendment would entirely change the character of the Bill, and render it so unpopular in Scotland as to endanger its passing.

LORD KINNAIRD

said, that whenever from local circumstances, such as the discovery of ironstone, or, as in Sutherlandshire, from the discovery of gold, there was a great influx of population into a district, the owners of property were always ready and anxious to provide education for those in their employment: but this proviso would stop their hands and prevent them from adopting any of the denominational schools. He hoped his noble Friend would adopt this Amendment.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had argued against the Amendment on the ground that in Scotland the denominational system practically did not exist—that was to say that there were denominational schools, but that children of all denominations attended them. But if that were so, where in the world was the harm of continuing them? If it were proved that the denominational schools were such as prevented the attendance of children whose parents did not belong to the denomination, he could understand why the noble Duke should be anxious to put an end to them: but if it were the happy peculiarity of that country that the denominational schools did not prevent the attendance of those who were not of the denomination, why in the world should they put an end to them? He hoped the noble Duke would accept, the advice given by the noble Lord near him. It was a great mistake to propose a measure which brought them into collision with questions which affected England as well as Scotland. The noble Duke had laid down the principle that it was impossible to make denominational schools, even with the best constructed Conscience Clause, into national schools. But in England they were not prepared for such an assertion, where many people held the opinion that if the clergy would accept a Conscience Clause the denominational system might be converted into a national system. The; noble Duke also maintained that it was inconsistent to have denominational schools and also rate-supported schools. It was impossible for those of them who supported denominational and rate-supported schools to assent to that proposition. But where was the harm? The noble Duke allowed denominational schools up to a certain date to be incorporated—why should he go out of his way to make it impossible for the founders of a school to come to terms with the Board, after that period? It appeared to him that this clause was inconsistent with the general views entertained on education both in England and Scotland, and really stood in the way of the Bill: and he hoped the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord would be adopted.

THE EARL OF MINTO

said, it was his belief that, to a great extent, the people of Scotland, always excluding the clergy and Commissioners of Supply, were strongly in favour of the principle of this Bill; and. in spite of what had been said by the most rev. Primate, he drew a wide distinction between the denominational and national systems. If there was one point more than another on which the people of Scotland had made up their mind, it was that they would not tolerate P. system of denominational education under the control of the clergy and were in favor of a system of national education supported by local assessment,, and in great measure governed by themselves.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

wished to say in reference to one statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that though it was true the Roman Catholics in some instances sent their children to the national schools, that was in districts where they were too poor to have schools of their own: but wherever they could the Roman Catholics sent their children to their own schools and to no other. He should certainly support the Amendment.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, he did not share the opinion of the most rev. Primate that whatever principle they adopted with regard to Scotland would affect the principle of education to be applied to England, because education in Scotland was based on a very different principle from that in England. In Scotland they had long had schools supported by local compulsory assessment; in England schools were raised by voluntary subscriptions aided by State grants. The difference between primary schools in the two countries also held good in regard to secondary education. The grammar schools of England scarcely found a counterpart in Scotland; and as to University education, there could be no doubt as to the difference that existed between the Scotch and English systems. He had no fear, therefore, that if they adopted that system which appeared to be in accordance with the general desire of the people of Scotland they would necessarily be committing themselves in any degree to the application of the same principle in England. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) spoke as if the intention of the Bill was to put an end to all denominational schools. That, however, was not the intention of the Bill. The Commissioners in their Report distinctly said they desired that a majority of those schools should be adopted as national schools under the Bill; and the question was, therefore, not whether those schools should be put an end to but whether new denominational schools hereafter should be brought into the national system. He felt bound to resist the proposed Amendment.

Amendment Moved to omit from the end of Clause the Proviso— That no school which shall be founded after two years from the date of the passing of this Act shall be adopted as a national school."—(The Lord Colonsay.)

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 68: Majority 45.

CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
	Clandeboye, L.(L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Ailesbury, M.	Foley, L. [Teller.]
Lansdowne, M.	Lawrence, L.
Normanby, M.	Lyttelton, L.
	Monson, L.
Airlie, E.	Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Camperdown, E.
Clarendon, E.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
De Grey, E.
De La Warr, E.	Suffield, L.
Kimberley, E.	Sundridge L. (D. Argyll.)
Minto, E.
Morley, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, Archp.	Home, E.
	Lauderdale, E.
Marlborough, D.	Leven and Melville, E.
Norfolk, D.	Nelson, E.
Richmond, D.	Portarlington, E.
Wellington, D.	Powis, E.
	Romney, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Rosse, E.
	Stradbroke, E.
Bath, M.	Tankerville, E.
Bristol, M.
Salisbury, M.	Hawarden, V.
	Templetown, V.
Amherst, E.
Bandon, E.	Derry and Raphoe, Bp.
Bathurst, E.	Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.
Cawdor, E.
Denbigh, E.	Peterborough, Bp.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	St. David's, Bp.
	Abinger, L,
Gainsborough, E.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Blantyre, L.
	Bolton, L.
Haddington, E.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Harrowby, E.

Cairns, L.	Heytesbury, L.
Chelmsford, L.	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Churston, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Clinton, L.	Petre, L.
Colchester, L.	Redesdale, L.
Colonsay, L. [Teller.]	Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Colville of Culross, L. [ Teller.]
	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Denman, L.
De Saumarez, L.	Saltoun, L.
Dunboyne, L.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Elphinstone, L.
Fitzwalter, L.	Sinclair, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)	Sondes, L.
	Stafford, L.
Granard, L. (E. Granard.)	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Proviso itruck out.

Then, on the Motion of the Earl of MINTO, the following Proviso was inserted in lieu thereof:— Provided also, that the trustees or owners of any adopted national school may at any time, on giving one year's notice to the Board, terminate the agreement and withdraw such school.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Board may resolve to erect new schools).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment in line 4, before ("it") insert— ("It shall be the duty of the board, when it finds that one or more schools are needed, to make such want well known in the locality; and if within one year thereafter the board shall not be satisfied that sufficient accommodation for the whole or part of such want is to be provided by voluntary effort, then ")

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he should have thought the noble Duke would have known his countrymen better than to suppose that they would provide by voluntary effort what was sure to be provided for by rates.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

hoped that the noble Duke would be satisfied with the triumph he had already gained; that had opened the door to future denominational schools, but his present Amendment went still further.

LORD CAIRNS

said, it was quite clear that it would be perfectly well known in the locality in which it was contemplated to make an order for the erection of new schools, and he did not, therefore, think his noble Friend's Amendment was necessary.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause with Amendments, agreed to.

Clause 22 (School committee to take proceedings to erect school) agreed to.

Clause 23 (New schools to be "new national schools" and to be managed by school committee) agreed to.

Clause 24 (School committee may elect teacher, &c.).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved an Amendment providing that the salary "shall not be less than £35 for the master of any school, inclusive of any sum derived from the Parliamentary grant."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (Combined national school) agreed to.

Clause 26 (School committees may combine to employ teachers of special subjects) agreed to.

Clauses 27 to (Power to concert old or adopted national schools into new national schools) agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 36 (Maintenance and repair of national schools) agreed to.

Clauses 37 to 41 (Election and constitution of school committees.)

Clause 37 (Election of school committees in landward parishes).

LORD ABINGER moved to strike out the clause and insert— In every landward parish the school committee shall consist of the parochial board for the time being, with the exception of the minister and the members of the kirk session who shall not be ex officio members of the board, but they may become members if elected as representatives of the ratepayers in accordance with the provisions of 8th &. 9th of Vict., cap. S3, sec. 22. He further proposed, should the parochial board consist of more than twenty members they shall elect not less than six or more than eight of their number to form a school committee.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

suggested as a compromise that the school committee should be elected, one-half by the proprietors and the other half by the occupiers.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

approved the suggestion of his noble Friend. It was much better that the parochial board should not be mixed up with this matter.

LORD COLNSAY

did not think the alteration suggested was quite satisfactory.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

undertook to bring up a clause on the Report that would satisfy his noble and learned Friend.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 51 agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 58 (Jurisdiction of the Board in respect to teachers).

Clause 52 (If the Board on inquiry consider the teacher of an old national school incompetent, or morally unfit, they may permit him to resign, or may issue an order suspending or removing him from office).

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to add before the word "suspend," the words "admonish or censure," with the view of empowering the same authority as was empowered to suspend a schoolmaster to adopt the alternative of admonishing or censuring him.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

assented to the Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 67 agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 68 (Grant for maintenance).

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

, in moving to omit the word "national," with the view of enabling the Privy Council to continue to give grants in aid to the existing voluntary schools, said that it was of the utmost importance that the schools now supported by voluntary efforts should be maintained; but, then, among them there were many denominational schools, especially those belonging to the Roman Catholics, in whose case there would be great jealousy on the part of the managers with respect to placing them under the control of the Board, and subjecting them to the general conditions which the Bill would impose. He thought the Bill as it now stood would occasion just and general dissatisfaction to many denominations in Scotland. In Scotland nearly all the voluntary schools were strictly denominational, belonging to religious bodies, which naturally exercised considerable control over them, which control they would be extremely unwilling to part with. One objection relating to the repair of buildings had been obviated during the progress of the Bill in Committee; but there still remained another—namely, that under the 20th and 53rd clauses the masters might be dismissed by order of the Board. This was one of the main reasons why the religious bodies were reluctant that their schools should be brought into connection with the Board and so converted into national schools, to which the Bill had a strong tendency. If the Bill were passed as it stood, it was highly probable that the voluntary subscriptions by which so many schools were maintained would fall off, and that the managers would consequently feel inclined to place the schools on the rates—a result which the religious bodies Mere far from desiring. Again,, it was probable that if the Privy Council grant were withdrawn many schools in the poorer districts would cease to exist. Having vested the whole character of the education of a district in the hands of the majority, we ought not to deprive the minority of the liberty of availing themselves of those means which the voluntary denominational system had hitherto provided. As his noble Friend was so confident that the proposed system would be accepted in Scotland, he ought to prove his confidence in the system by removing the pains and disabilities of the Bill. He now moved the omission of the word "national" from the clause: and if that were agreed to. he would subsequently move consequential alterations.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said he would not revive the discussion which had arisen earlier in the evening" on the question of denominationalism; but he could not agree to the omission of this word. He wished, however, to remark that every consideration and tenderness would be shown to the denominational schools under this Bill. The case of the iron-musters who opposed this measure appeared at first to be a most formidable one, but when investigated it would not hold water at all. The great ironmasters in Lanarkshire supported their schools by levying; a rate of 2d. per week on each of their workmen, and. in addition to this, charged fees for the attendance of the children. Indeed, in the case of some of the great works, the fees levied from the workmen amounted to more than the whole sum expended on the schools, and yet the ironmasters came forward and asked that their property should be exempt ed from the rate on the ground that they supported the schools. The part taken by a small section of the Established clergy led him to entertain great doubt whether they ought to be ex officio members of the local Board, and whether a change in that direction would not be of great service to the spread of education in Scotland. He could not. on the part of the Government, accept the Amendment.

LORD KINNAIRD

said, he could confirm what had fallen from the noble Duke as to these workhouse schools, to which the men were bound to contribute, without having any voice in their management. Unless this Amendment were carried the clause would annihiliate the Catholic schools and Episcopal schools, which had been built and supported on the faith of receiving the Privy Council grant. They could not become adopted schools, nor could they receive any grants from the Privy Council. He hoped the noble Duke would persevere with his Amendment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

suggested that as this was a money clause, which threw an increased charge upon the Estimates voted by the other House, it would be better to omit it. The clause could be re-inserted "elsewhere," and would then again come before their Lordships for discussion.

LORD CAIRNS

said, it was a fallacy to speak of the national system of education as provided by the Bill, as if it were something distinct from the denominational system. The system of education provided by this Bill for Scot- land would be, in a vast majority of parishes, denominational, because the local committees would insist upon a religious education, and that would be denominational.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be so injurious that he should greatly prefer to omit the clause altogether rather than adopt the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

, in reply, repeated his opinion that the Privy Council ought to be able to make grants to the schools to which his Amendment referred.

On Question, Amendment agreed, to.

On Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON moved to leave out the clause. It was highly desirable, after the Amendment which had been introduced, that the Privy Council should be left entirety free in making the same regidations with respect to grants for Scotland as for England.

Moved, "To leave out Clause 68, as amended."—(The Lord President.)

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

observed that the only modification of the existing system was proposed by the noble Duke himself. The effect of this clause, as amended, would not be to fetter the Privy Council. He would rather bring the whole system in Scotland into conformity with the English system.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he was sorry to give their Lordships the trouble of dividing, but he must take the sense of the Committee on the clause.

On Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 28: Majority 31.

CONTENTS.
Marlborough, D. [Teller.]	Tuam, &c, Bp.
Norfolk, D.	Abinger, L.
Northumberland, D.	Arundell of Wardour, L.
Richmond, D.	Blantyre, L.
Wellington, D.	Cairns, L.
	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Colchester, L.
	Colonsay, L.
Bath, M.	Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]
Bristol, M.
Exeter, M.	Denman, L.
	Dunboyne, L.
Amherst, E.	Elphinstone, L.
Bandon, E.	Fitzwalter, L.
Brooke and Warwick, E.	Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Denbigh, E.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
	Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
Gainsborough, E.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Heytesbury, L.
	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Haddington, E.
Home, E.	Ormathwaite, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Petre, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Redesdale, L.
Nelson, E.	Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Powis, E.
Romney, E.	Saltoun, L.
Rosse, E.	Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)
Sommers, E.
Tankerville, E.	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Hawarden, V.	Sinclair, L.
Sidmouth, V.	Stafford, L.
Templetown, V.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.	Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	De Grey, E.
	De La Warr, E.
	Ducie, E.
Saint Albans, D.	Kimberley, E.
Somerset, D.	Minto, E.
	Morley, E.
Camden, M.
Lansdowne, M.	Belper, L.
Normanby, M.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
Airlie, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Camperdown, E.	Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Clarendon, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Lawrence, L.
Leigh, L.	Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)	Suffield, L.
	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Penzance, L.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70.

LORD COLONSAY moved an Amendment; in line 40, before ("every") insert— ("In every national school, except in special cases to be approved of by the board, a certain portion of time shall be devoted to religious instruction, and such instruction shall not be contrary to but shall be consistent with the doctrines contained in the shorter catechism agreed upon by the assembly of divines at Westminster and approved by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-eight, and")

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, this security for the religious teaching of the children would not be worth the paper on which it was written. The only security lay in the character of the school committee. Besides, he objected to incorporate the Shorter Catechism in an Act of Parliament.

LORD CAIRNS

, and other noble Lords, advised the noble and learned Lord not to press the clause.

Amendment (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday, the 3rd of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 96.)

Memorandum showing the financial effect of the proposals in, as to parishes in which a 3d. rate has been levied: Ordered to be laid before the House. (No. 97.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

wished to know whether the noble Duke, on the occasion of the Report, would give their Lordships some data to show that the 3d. rate would be sufficient for the purposes of the Act.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

doubted the accuracy of the noble Duke's figures quoted at a former period of the evening, and felt no doubt whatever that the 3d. rate would be sufficient for all the purposes of the Act.

House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock A.M., till half past Ten o'clock.