CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 2 August 1872)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
, in introducing the Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments in this Bill, said he did not think any of the changes made in the Bill by the other House since it had left their Lordships' House would provoke any opposition, because they were only modifications. The first alteration made in their Lordships' Amendments by the other House was one which was moved by the noble Duke who was not now in the House (the Duke of Richmond). Before the noble Duke left town, he (the Duke of Argyll) submitted the change made to him. It met with the noble Duke's assent. Their Lordships would remember that the noble Duke proposed a certain declaration in the Preamble respecting religious teaching. The other House had assented to this in a modified form. It now stood as follows:— And whereas it has been the custom in the public schools of Scotland to give instruction in religion to children whose parents did not object to the instruction so given, but with liberty to parents, without forfeiting any of the other advantages of the schools, to elect that their children should not receive such instruction, and it is expedient that the managers of public schools shall be at liberty to continue the said custom. That agreed with the general intention of the Bill. Another matter of importance was with regard to the Board. The principle of a Scotch Board had been accepted, and also that it should have power to provide a Code subject to the approval of the Privy Council. It was proposed that the Board should last two years, and continue in existence three years longer if deemed advisable. The Amendments looked more formidable than they really were; but the fact was, the changes made rendered a re-cast and re-modelling of some of the clauses necessary. This was the reason why they looked so extensive. Some alterations had also been made in their Amendments to Clauses 9 and 10. To these the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had given his adhesion. He did not expect their Lordships would place any 302 obstruction in the way of agreeing to the changes made in the Bill since it was before them. He would accordingly move that their Lordships do not persist in the Amendments which the Commons had altered, and that they assent to the alterations made by the Commons.

§ LORD COLONSAY
said, he was not disposed to raise any objection with regard to the Preamble of the Bill. He was satisfied with it, so far as it went; but it was very important that the principle it upheld should not be disturbed. With regard to the other alterations, he could not agree with the views of the noble Duke who had just spoken. He thought that in some respects many would think that the Bill was less to be liked now than when it first came before their Lordships. One point of importance was, that there should be a Board having the supervision of education, and all the control of education, located in Scotland. In the second place, it was of importance that that Board should continue in existence for a longer period than the time proposed. The people of Scotland wanted something in the shape of a permanent Board. Petitions signed by 250,000 of the people had been presented in favour of a permanent Board. He believed that to elect the Board only for two years would work most unsatisfactorily. There had been a strongly expressed opinion in the other House on this subject, and some of those who were habitual supporters of the Government made strong protests against it. Singular to say, however, those who had thus spoken strongly in protest were found in the same lobby with the Government, although one of them in his agony exclaimed that the action of the Government in this matter was "most despotic." In spite of that, however, it seemed that the terrors of discipline were too great; and, as he had said, those who had fought against this change voted for it. There were several other points which he should like to see amended; but, looking at the state of the House, he did not think it would avail much to press the matter upon them. He thought it necessary, however, to enter his protest against the Amendment which had made the Board of only two years' duration, and should like to know if there was any objection to making it permanent for five years? With regard to the removal of schoolmasters, he wished to call the 303 attention of the House to page 13, where they would find it provided that— Any teacher of a public school appointed previously to the passing of this Act may be removed from his office in manner following; that is to say—(1.) It shall be lawful to the school board of any parish or burgh to make a complaint to the sheriff of the county, charging any such teacher with immoral conduct or cruel or improper treatment of the scholars under his charge, and specifying in such complaint the particular acts in respect of which the complaint is made; and a copy of such complaint shall be served upon the teacher, who shall be required on an induciæ of eight days to appear before the sheriff to answer to the said complaint; and the teacher shall, if he deny the charge, and if he think fit, answer the particulars of the complaint in writing, or may plead generally that he is Not Guilty; and the sheriff shall thereafter proceed to the trial of the complaint, and take the evidence in the manner observed in the Sheriff Court in taking proofs in civil causes; and if he shall find such complaint or any material and relevant part thereof, to be proved, he shall give judgment accordingly, and pronounce sentence of deprivation, which sentence shall be final, and not subject to review. (2.) If the school board of any parish or burgh shall consider that any such teacher is incompetent, unfit, or inefficient, they may require a special report regarding the school and the teacher from Her Majesty's inspector charged with the duty of inspecting such school; and on receiving such report the school board may if they see cause remove such teacher from office; provided that before proceeding to give judgment on the matter they shall furnish to the teacher a copy of such report; and that a judgment removing a teacher shall not have effect until confirmed by the Board of Education: Provided also, that in the case of teachers of parish schools appointed previously to the passing of this Act who may be so removed, the school board shall have the same powers of granting retiring allowances, and the teacher shall have the same rights to retiring allowances, as were vested in heritors and ministers and in parish schoolmasters respectively, by sections nineteen and twenty of the Parochial and Burgh Schoolmasters (Scotland) Act, 1861, in the case of parish schoolmasters permitted or required to resign or dismissed or removed from office as therein provided. Now, these were persons appointed under certain conditions, and the matter was one of no small difficulty, and should be dealt with in a more circumspect way. But he failed to see that the schoolmaster had any power to defend himself against the local board. The local board might give him the report; they might form their judgment; but before pronouncing it, and after forming it, they were to communicate with the Secretary of State. What was the use of the copy of the report? There was no power to refuse their own conditions. When they had pronounced their judgment, it went to the Board of Education, and the 304 Board of Education might approve of it or not; but it would have no effect if they did not approve of it. He thought a body more independent than the local board should be the judge. Schoolmasters under the Bill would be put too much under the members of the local board whose children they were to teach. The child was the mother, the mother was the father, and the father, in this case, was to be in this board over the schoolmaster. What was the position of the schoolmaster then? Schoolmasters should be as independent as was consistent with being a good schoolmaster; but the Bill deprived schoolmasters of their present position, and put them in a much worse condition. He considered that they were most unjustly treated.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, if there was a strong feeling in Scotland for five years there would be no difficulty in granting it; what, however, was proposed was two years, and at the end of that time it was pretty certain to be prolonged. The most important function of this Board was, that it should suggest what should be the principles of the new Code in Scotland. That was an important concession to Scotch feeling, more especially as the Scotch Board would suggest it in a public document which could be moved for in Parliament. It was of great importance that, as it had been called, "Scotch minds" should be brought to bear on this question. That however, was a work which could not only be done in two years, but in one year. One word about the masters. The noble and learned Lord said the Amendment gave no power to the schoolmaster to take steps in his own defence. In the first cases—that was in the case of schoolmasters charged with any criminality, the case would go for trial before the Sheriff. Then, as to the incompetent master, he did not know what an incompetent schoolmaster would say for himself, except that he was competent. But every precaution was taken. The Inspector must be satisfied, the Board in Edinburgh must be satisfied, and then the decision must be confirmed. They had three independent tribunals. He apprehended that Parliament did not require to give them any more power. The schoolmasters were furnished with a copy of the report. The noble Lord said there was no use giving the report to the master if he could not answer. Of course 305 he could answer. That was a matter of course.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the Bill as it was originally brought in fixed three years, and they were punished for their impertinence in raising it to five by having the period further reduced by the Commons to two. He wished to point out that by the Amendments of the Commons it was provided that, if towards the expiration of the two years during which the Order was to be permanent, it should be considered desirable to prolong its existence, the Order in Council must be laid on the Tables of both Houses for 40 days before it could take effect. But supposing that there should be a dissolution of Parliament in May, 1874, it might happen that, contrary to the wishes of the Government, the Board might be killed beyond all possibility of revival, because Parliament would not be in existence, and the Notice could not, therefore, be laid on the Table. In regard to the duration of the Board, he also thought that if it were for five years certain, they might expect to attract to it some of the best men in Scotland; but that would not be the case if they knew that their services were liable to be dispensed with after two years. He was disposed therefore to move, as an Amendment, that the word "five" should be substituted for the word "two."

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
consented to substitute three years for two, and to strike out the provision with respect to the Order in Council extending the term lying for 40 days on the Table of the House of Commons. There was no doubt there were two sides to this question. There were distinguished Scotchmen who would join the Board if the period was short, who would not join it if they were to be tied to it after the ordinary work had commenced. He would also, in deference to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Colonsay), make the clause of which he complained permissive, instead of compulsory.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
complained of the inconvenience which was occasioned by discussing Amendments with which many of their Lordships were not acquainted until they came down to the House. He protested against its being supposed that the House had assented to all the remaining Amendments made by the House of Commons in the Bill. Many noble Lords were away, and it was highly inconvenient that so short a notice should have been given.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the question had been formally put and decided.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
thought the forms of the House ought not to be too strictly adhered to. The Business of the House was conducted in a very slovenly manner, and the forms of the House must not be treated like a mousetrap, in which you must always go forward and never go back. It was decidedly wrong to put forward these Amendments in the lump, as it prevented any opportunity for proper discussion.

VISCOUNT MELVILLE
complained that the business had been so conducted, that he was not aware what the precise question was that was being brought under the notice of their Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
repeated that the last question put was that all the other Amendments be agreed to.