COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 12 July 1872 vol 212 cc1012-37

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

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, he wished to make a few remarks on the Bill itself before their Lordships went into Committee. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who had charge of the measure, said on a former occasion that it was by a Bill in the nature of a compromise that the present scheme of English education had been established, and he recommended the House to come to a compromise in the matter of education for Scotland by adopting this Bill, which would not interfere with the religious feelings of the people. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had no doubt of the good intentions of the noble Duke, but it might be quite possible that even with the best intentions on the part of those who framed a measure, difficulties scarcely foreseen might arise. The noble Duke had borne eloquent testimony to the moral as well as the educational advantages which had arisen from the existing system of education in Scotland; but he said that it did not cover the entire country, and was consequently inadequate. This was the argument for the adoption of the new system; but he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) hoped care would be taken that under the new system there would be those advantages in respect of education and morals which were admitted to be a result of the system now about to be superseded. Their Lordships ought not to shut their eyes to the fact that the system proposed for Scotland was not altogether the same as regarded school boards as the new system in England. In England there were not school boards for very small districts; but the Bill before their Lordships contained a plan for a school board in every parish in Scotland. A system which worked well on a limited extent might not be so successful on a large scale. The great majority of the members of the Scotch school boards, like the Scotch people generally, would be no doubt in favour of religious education; but there were in Scotland, as in this country, many persons who wished to substitute purely secular for religious education. There was a society in Scotland which devoted itself to the advocacy of the secular system. He thought, therefore, their Lordships ought to take every precaution in order to secure that the religious element should not suffer by the substitution of the proposed system for the existing one. The conscience clause had worked well in England; but it seemed doubtful whether the four hours daily devoted to secular education in Scotland would not drive the religious instruction into the background. Again, they must remember that the schoolmaster in Scotland was a very different person from the schoolmaster in England. In Scotland he was usually a man who had received a University education, and who had sat at the feet of Dr. Chalmers. As the local school boards would be composed of that class of men who were churchwardens and Poor Law Guardians in this country, he suggested that it would be a mistake to subject the schoolmasters too much to the caprice of persons of that class. So little were we in England acquainted with the details of this question of Scotch education that the very names were some of them strange to us. It was an error, for instance, to suppose that the social position of the Scotch schoolmaster was identical or nearly so with that of the English schoolmaster. This was shown by a memorial which had been placed in his hands on the subject of the widows' fund, the object of which was to secure to every schoolmaster's widow an annuity in the case of his death. It should be especially remembered that of those persons who received a University education in Scotland no fewer than 50 per cent had no other training than that which was afforded by the parish schools—again showing that the Scotch system would not admit of comparison with the English one. For himself, he heartily approved the Bill; but he thought that great precautions ought to be adopted in order to prevent any injury to the quality of Scotch education by a scheme designed for its extension.

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1 (Interpretation of Act).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment providing that "the Board" should mean the Board of Education for Scotland established by this Bill. After what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) he hoped to have the support of the right rev. Bench in his endeavour to get a Scotch Education Board for Scotland. Without entering into the question of the comparative value of a Scotch Committee of Education sitting in England and a Scotch Education Board sitting in Scotland, he would only observe that it was a point on which there was no difference of opinion in Scotland. There was a unanimous feeling in that country that the Education Board should be constituted in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1867 and the provision in the Bill of 1869. The Scotch people would not be satisfied unless they had a Scotch Board in contradistinction to a Committee of the Privy Council—a Board which would understand the peculiarities of the country, and which, from their knowledge of the country, would be competent to deal with the various subjects which must necessarily come under the cognizance of any body having charge of education in Scotland. Unless it were such a body, he maintained that the local boards could not be so controlled as to secure satisfactory results, either with regard to the education that might be given or the management of the boards. The Board of Education for Scotland ought to be acquainted with the peculiarities and with the educational wants of the country, as well as with the important duties of forming local boards and uniting parishes to meet those wants. He warned their Lordships against incurring the risk of having the standard of education lowered by boards constituted of persons with limited intelligence, who could not comprehend the educational requirements of the districts under their control. At one time the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) who had charge of Scotch Education in that House was in favour of having a Board sitting in Scotland; why he had changed his mind was a matter of surprise to many.

Amendment moved to insert—"'The Board of Education' and 'the Board' shall mean the Board of Education for Scotland established by this Act."—(The Duke of Richmond).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that although this was a consequential Amendment, it raised conveniently the whole question of a Scotch Board. The Government, having fully considered the matter, had arrived at the conclusion that on the whole it was not desirable to have a Board at Edinburgh. He did not deny that three years ago he proposed that the Board should sit in Scotland. Why he had changed his mind on the subject was that his proposition did not meet with that support—indeed, it was met with direct opposition—from a large number of Scotch Peers and Scotch Members of the other House of Parliament, who objected to a Board on the ground that it would be irresponsible—that sitting at Edinburgh it would not be under the direct control of Parliament. He recollected that he was obliged to defend the Scotch Poor Law Board in Parliament under the disadvantage of not having very much personal knowledge of its business; but, happily, that Board was presided over by a noble Friend and relative of his who possessed the confidence of the whole of Scotland. The Education Board which his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) intended to propose would come in contact with very powerful local bodies, whose decisions it would have, perhaps, to override. Almost everything which, three years ago, was proposed to be done by the Scotch Board would under this Bill be done by a Committee of the Privy Council, which Committee was to have direct reference to Scotch education, and, at the same time, would be more directly responsible to Parliament than any Board sitting at Edinburgh could be. Again, the principles of the Bill would be carried into effect by Commissioners appointed for temporary duties. His noble Friend thought a Scotch Board would keep up the standard of education; but that standard was much more likely to be kept up by the Minutes of Council. The schools would not get their grants unless on results. He (the Duke of Argyll), however, was satisfied that the principle adopted by the framers of this measure would in no way injure the effectiveness of the existing system of education in Scotland: and he was satisfied that the Board proposed would be as useful to Scotland and as provident of her interests as any Board sitting in Edinburgh. His noble Friend took his proposed Scotch Board from the Bill of 1869, without any reference to provisions in the Bill now before their Lordships, which provided otherwise for duties which that Board would have performed under the former Bill. The Board was to consist of four members, two of whom were to be a quorum. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland were to be two of the number; but they would not be able to attend, so that the affairs of the Board would be discharged by two members. Did the noble Duke think that the people of the large cities and towns in Scotland would be satisfied to have the management of their schools transferred to Edinburgh? Some time ago, when he was in Glasgow, he found that the miners resident there had, by means of 2d. a-week, erected, endowed, and supported a series of large schools. Did the noble Duke suppose that the managers of these schools would allow their affairs to be transferred to Edinburgh? He did not think they would. He did not think there was really a necessity for the Amendment of the noble Duke, and he trusted the Committee would not consent to it.

LORD COLONSAY

said, he regretted that the general scope of this Bill should be so unfriendly to religious instruction as well as to higher education. The voice of the Scotch people was decidedly in favour of a resident Board. They apprehended that the measure was one which would tend to lower the standard of education by placing parochial schools on the level of primary schools, instead of sustaining the encouragement which had hitherto been given to the higher-class education, with which the Committee of Council had less to deal than with primary instruction. Whilst he had not entire confidence in local boards, at all events he thought the system was one which would require the control of a Board resident in Scotland.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

said, his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had laid great stress on the people of Scotland desiring a religious education; but he (the Earl of Airlie) did not see what connection that had with the proposition to establish a Board in Scotland. As regarded the standard of education, he believed it was the desire of all that that should not be lowered. He confessed that he could not see how a Board sitting at Edinburgh would be able to maintain a higher standard than a Commission under the direction of the Privy Council. All that the noble Duke wanted could be given by the Privy Council as well as by a Scottish Board. The noble Duke had said that there was no doubt that the whole population of Scotland were in favour of this Scottish Board; but this Bill had passed the House of Commons, where Scotland was represented, and it was strange that no such Amendment had been carried there. Various Amendments had come up in the other House with a proposition for Scotch Commissioners, and this was the compromise accepted by the representatives of Scotland in the House of Commons as a satisfactory arrangement. He did not think they ought to have two separate Boards, when their object could be attained as well by one; two such Boards could lead to nothing but embarrassment. That it was desirable to have Scotchmen on the Board well acquainted with the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland, no one would deny; but the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke opposite did not provide that its members should be connected with Scotland in any way. The Bill proposed that the Lord Advocate should be one of the most prominent members of the Board. It was everywhere admitted that the Lord Advocate was overworked, and therefore it would be almost impossible for him to take responsible duties to be discharged in Edinburgh, as proposed by the Amendment. It would be necessary for the Lord Advocate to neglect other business if he was to go to Scotland, and there was no way of getting out of that difficulty. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in moving the second reading of this Bill, had told them that the great reason of the inefficiency of parish schools was, that when once a schoolmaster was appointed there was great difficulty in removing him. But what did this Amendment propose? To do away with that evil? Why, it proposed that when the local board desired to remove a schoolmaster there was to be an appeal to the Board sitting at Edinburgh. This Board was to go into the whole case against the schoolmaster. There was very great difficulty now in removing a schoolmaster; but he did not see how that was to be diminished by leaving an appeal against the local board to the Edinburgh Board. There were many things to make a schoolmaster obnoxious to the local authorities which could not be properly weighed or taken cognizance of by a Central Board. The schoolmaster might be grossly immoral, and have such peculiarities of temper that children might not go to his school, and yet he might be in the strict sense efficient, and in that case the Central Board might continue him in office against the wishes of the whole parish. The result of this would be to leave them just where they were. As to the establishment of school boards and these other matter of detail, it appeared to him that they might be just as well done by the Commissioners proposed in the Bill as by any permanent Scottish Board, for the establishment of which he did not see any necessity. Then the relations of the two proposed Boards were anomalous and extraordinary. The Scotch Education Board were only to act upon the suggestion of the Privy Council. That was to say that the Privy Council were to throw their shield over the Board, and the Board was to act as a buffer to the Privy Council. Now he did not approve of buffers, and he thought the appointment of a Board for that purpose very objectionable.

LORD KINNAIRD

, in reference to the remark of the noble Earl that the Scotch people were almost unanimous in favour of the Bill said, that this statement was scarcely consistent with what had occurred in the other House, for those who had watched the progress of the Bill in the other House well knew that scarcely any proposal made by a Scotch Member was entertained by the learned Lord who introduced the Bill, but was generally met with the threat that if the proposal were adopted the Bill would be withdrawn. He thought that when the Scotch Members went back to their constituents they would find a large majority of them most decidedly opposed to this measure. It was remarkable that the only Amendment carried by the Scotch Members was that for the appointment of Commissioners. That was a sop thrown to those who wished to have a Scotch Board. He regretted that the Members for Scotland should have so disregarded the overwhelming number of petitions which had been presented against this Bill. He protested against the people of Scotland being handed over to the tender mercies of the Education Committee of the Privy Council. That Department almost stunk in the nostrils of the people of Scotland. If this Bill passed, the Code of the Education Department of the Privy Council, which had been effectually resisted for many years, would, no doubt, be forced down the throats of the people of Scotland, and the consequence would be to lower the standard of education in Scotland. The pupil teachers now were not at all equal to the higher class of students in the parish schools. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division, and he should certainly vote for it.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, it was very curious, if the Education Department of the Privy Council was in such bad odour with the people of Scotland as the noble Lord who had just spoken represented, that during the many years in which the Parliamentary grant had been administered in Scotland fewer questions, less difficulties, and less complaints had arisen in Scotland than in England. The noble Duke proposed that the Scotch Board should prepare a Code which was to govern the administration of the Parliamentary grant, and submit that Code for the approval of the Scotch Education Department. Did the noble Duke really think that it would be possible to administer the Parliamentary grant upon such a plan? The noble Duke made no provision for the possible contingency of the Board proposals not being approved. If the necessary sanction were withheld there would be no Code—and if there were no Code there could be no Parliamentary grant. So that if the Scotch Education Department exercised its powers the Board that prepared the Code would be reduced to the position of fifth wheel in the coach. It would lead to irreconcilable confusion if grants in aid of education were given except upon the condition that they were to be administered by persons directly responsible to the Legislature, which would not be the case with the proposed Board. The noble Earl who had last spoken had no great confidence in Com- missioners appointed by the Government; but his own proposal was precisely of the same character. If the Scotch people were willing to let a Central Board regulate the construction of school-houses, the removal of masters, the fees, and the subjects taught in every locality, all he could say was that they were much more submissive than the English people—for no such large powers were exercised by the Committee of Council with regard to English elementary schools.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

appealed to the noble Duke whether he could seriously expect Parliament and the Privy Council to allow a Scotch Board to draw up a Code regulating the expenditure of public money. His experience must convince him that this was out of the question; yet without it the Board would be useless for the main object he had in view, and would in various ways be unworkable.

On Question, whether to insert? their Lordships divided:—Contents 81; Not-Contents 70: Majority 11.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Words inserted.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved in page 2, at the end of clause, to insert— Heritors shall mean heritors as now qualified to vote in the election of a schoolmaster in terms of the recited Act of the 43rd year of the reign of His Majesty George III., cap. 54.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that under the present law the right of electing the schoolmasters lay, not in the general body of heritors, but only in those who were heritors to the extent of 100 pounds Scots. It was impossible that the Government could consent to retain this system, which established a purely arbitrary line which the Bill proposed to abolish, and the Amendment proposed to preserve. If the Amendment were adopted, the assessment whence the fund for paying the schoolmaster was derived must be re-imposed upon the heritors in question, notwithstanding that the House of Commons had declared that they should no longer be liable to it. Such a consequential Amendment being a money clause, the House of Commons were not likely to assent to its being inserted by their Lordships' House, and therefore it was clearly impossible that the Government could accept it. One of the great objects of the Bill was to do away with the exclusive liability of the heritors; and therefore the Amendment, by proposing to retain that liability, was directly contrary to the principle of the measure. It would be perfectly possible for rural parishes which paid their own assessment to remain as they were at present under this Bill.

LORD ABINGER

said, that whereas his object was to keep matters very much as they were in the rural districts, the object of the Government was to effect a radical change in the constitution of the Scotch parochial schools, to which he was conscientiously opposed.

After some further conversation,

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that, agreeing with his noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch) as to the great merits of the present parochial system of education in Scotland, and regretting that the Government had come to the resolution of putting an end to it, he was bound to say that the existing system could be maintained only so long as it stood still. When they came to deal with the matter, and looked it full in the face, he was compelled to come very reluctantly to the conclusion that, admitting that there must be some great change made in the educational system of that country, they could not uphold the parochial system as it now existed side by side with another system; and that the only mode of dealing with the matter was to accept the proposal of the Government for creating school boards in the manner suggested by the noble Duke opposite. The proposal of the Government was not, as was sometimes erroneously stated, the inauguration of a new system of school boards, but merely the alteration of the system which had long existed. Under those circumstances he would recommend his noble Friend behind him not to press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

said, the question was simply whether they would force that Bill on districts of the country where the existing means of education were perfectly sufficient.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

said, he was conscious of the difficulties, and would not press his Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Expenses of Scotch Education Department) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Appointment of organizing Commissioners in Scotland to act for three years).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to omit the clause with a view to insert provisions for establishing a Board to be called "The Educational Board for Scotland," for carrying into effect the Act, such Board to consist of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland for the time being, and three persons to be appointed by Her Majesty, one of the three to be the chairman, and for other purposes.

An Amendment moved to leave out the whole clause, and insert instead thereof— A Board of Education shall be and is hereby established, to be called 'The Board of Education for Scotland,' for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act; and the Board shall consist of the following persons, namely, the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland for the time being, and three persons to be appointed by Her Majesty, by writing under the hand of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, of which last-mentioned persons one shall by the said writing be appointed chairman; Her Majesty shall have power to fill up from time to time any vacancy which may occur by the death, resignation, or otherwise of any of the three last-mentioned persons."—(The Duke of Richmond.)

Motion agreed to; clause struck out.

On Question? whether those words be there inserted,

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

asked the noble Duke for an explanation of what were to be the functions of the proposed Board in respect to school buildings.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

hoped the noble Duke would not insist upon an Amendment which would prevent local bodies being the judge of their own school buildings.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

pointed out that the section of the proposed new clause requiring the Scotch Board to frame a code would cause a great deal of administrative inconvenience. The Code was merely a set of rules in accordance with which the Parliamentary grant was administered, and he could not accept the decision just come to as conclusive, at least upon this point.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

insisted that education in Scotland should be controlled by Scotch minds thoroughly conversant with the wants of the people. Ireland had its own Board.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, that the Irish Board was appointed during pleasure, and its members could be dismissed if they did not carry out the policy of the Government.

EARL GREY

said, he could not suppose the noble Duke desired to create a wholly irresponsible Board. The fact that all civil servants held office during pleasure was a great security for the good administration of the law, notwithstanding the power of dismissal was very rarely exercised and only on great provocation.

Motion agreed to; new clause inserted.

Then a series of clauses, numbered 4 to 10, forming a complete Code for the constitution and functions of the Board, inserted.

Clauses 4 to 19, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 20 (Parish schools).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert in line 30, after ("minister") the words— ("but any decision of a school board with reference to the subjects of instruction, other than religious instruction, to be taught in the school or schools under their charge shall be subject to appeal by any having interest to the Board of Education.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

also opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would permit anyone to make an appeal, and consequently would throw a great deal of trouble on the Board frequently with reference to the most trivial subjects.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Existing schools to be taken into account).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in line 21, after ("therein") to insert— ("provided that no school which is subject to inspection by one of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools shall be required to have its scholars examined by any other person.

Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 35 (Transference of existing schools, &c.).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in page 16, line 7, after ("Board") to insert— ("provided that no school built within thirty years before such proposed transference shall be transferred, if the persons moved defrayed the greater portion of the cost of the building and establishing such school, or their legal representatives, shall object in writing to such transfer. For the purpose of this proviso, the word person shall include a corporation, a body of trustees, or a Government department.")

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

pointed out that the proposal would place serious difficulties in the way of the operation of the Bill, which he thought did all that could be necessary by requiring the consent of the trustees.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

mentioned the case of a school in the metropolis which was founded three or four years ago by persons who desired that it should be entirely used for Church of England teaching. According to the usual forms of the National Society, it was given in trust to the clergyman and the churchwardens; but the clergyman was afterwards convicted of forgery, and the managers transferred the school, in breach of the trust, to the London School Board. He desired by this Amendment to protect such endowments, and prevent their being wrested from the purpose for which they were originally intended.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

explained that in the case referred to, the transfer of the school was not sanctioned by the Education Department until after there had been an election of new trustees by the subscribers.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

remarked that every caution had been taken to give the subscribers and all persons interested an opportunity of having their claims fully considered.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

also opposed the Amendment, which, he said, would create numerous difficulties, and give rise to a great deal of bad feeling.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 50 (School fees).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in line 18, after ("be") to leave out to end of clause, and insert— ("payable to the principal teacher in charge of the school, and where there is more than one teacher, subject to such division as may be made by the school board, with a right of appeal by anyone having interest to the Board of Education. The principal teacher shall likewise be entitled to the interest or annual produce of any bequest or endowment for his behoof, and also to not less than two thirds of any parliamentary grant that may be earned in respect of the school under his charge, but where there is more than one teacher, such two thirds shall be subject to division, and the division shall be subject to appeal in manner herein-before mentioned.") The clause as it stood simply gave the board the option of thus disposing of the fees, but they might also be applied to the reduction of the expenses of the school. The results of the teacher's exertions surely ought to benefit himself.

LORD KINNAIRD

said, he had himself an Amendment to much the same effect, and would therefore support the noble Duke's proposition. He thought it very unfair to allow the money earned by the teacher to be thrown into a fund and applied perhaps to another school in the same parish.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it interfered with one of the great objects of the Bill, which was to establish free relations between the employers and the employed. A large income derived from school fees might be owing, perhaps, not to the high qualifications possessed by the schoolmaster, but to the accident of locality. It must not be forgotten that that and all other educational measures had a tendency to create a monopoly of education in the hands of certificated schoolmasters. Now, the market-price of teachers was rising in a most extraordinary manner all over the kingdom, and therefore the noble Lord need be under no apprehension that the schoolmasters were likely to be underpaid for their services. He had much better leave it to the decision of bargain and sale.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

, on the other hand, thought that the educational labour market was overstocked.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

could see no reason why the Scotch schoolmasters and their employers should not be allowed to make their own bargain.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, there was at present an enormous demand everywhere for trained schoolmasters. The present monopoly of teaching by the certificated schoolmasters was purely artificial, besides being ridiculous and unjust, and he trusted that before long the noble Marquess opposite would take measures to put an end to it. The only test to be relied on was the efficiency of the school, and it did not matter whether the master was a certificated teacher or not.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

answered that the existing system had received the approval of those who had given their attention to the subject of education.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that the design of the Amendment was that, as a general rule, the school fees should be paid to the schoolmaster. The schoolmaster would thereby be encouraged to exert himself to the utmost, by the knowledge that as the number of children in his school increased so would his salary also increase.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

also maintained that if they took away the fees, they would remove the incitement to better teaching, and so impair the efficiency of schools. His experience both in Scotland and Ireland was that careful teaching was an important element in schools.

LORD COLONSAY

recommended the noble Duke not to press the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that under the circumstances he would not press his Motion.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 51 (Teachers' houses).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

proposed, in line 25, to leave out from ("during") to ("convenient") in line 29, and insert— ("and it shall be the duty of the school board in every parish to provide a house and garden for the principal teacher of each school in such place as they judge convenient, or to allow a reasonable sum in lieu thereof; the extent of the accommodation to be provided, or the sum to be allowed in lieu thereof, being subject to the approval of the Board of Education.")

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

thought this Amendment was open to the same objection as the last. It was a statutory interference between the school boards and the teachers, and it would also impose an enormous pecuniary burden on many poor parts of the country. The Amendment was too sweeping, and he trusted that it would not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 52 (Teachers in office before the passing of the Act. Teachers appointed after the passing of the Act.)

LORD KINNAIRD

said, the clause proposed that teachers appointed after the passing of the Act should be appointed during pleasure by the school boards, who should also assign to them their salaries and emoluments. He proposed the addition of a Proviso, to insure that there should be at least one school in each parish giving instruction in the higher branches of education, and that the principal teacher of that school should have a salary of not less than £35 a-year.

An Amendment moved, in page 21, line 40, leave out from ("fit") to end of clause and insert— ("Provided always, that in every parish there shall be at least one school affording the means of instruction as heretofore in the higher as well as in the elementary branches of education; the principal teacher of which school shall, unless in the special circumstances of the parish the Board of Education shall otherwise determine, receive from the school board a salary from the rates of not less than per annum.")—(The Lord Kinnaird.)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, this Proviso would oblige every parish, however small or however poor, to provide a salary of £35. It would be better if the Bill settled only the machinery for providing education, and left the parishes to act for themselves.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 53 agreed to.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved the addition of a new clause to follow Clause 53— Public examiners shall be appointed by the Department from time to time for the examination of such persons as desire to obtain certificates of competency as schoolmasters, and, in addition to the examiners appointed by the Department, one examiner shall be appointed by the University Court of each University and one by the Educational Institute of Scotland. He considered some such provision as this necessary. At the same time, he did not desire to interfere in any way with the powers invested in the Privy Council.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

objected to the clause. It appeared to him that this was a matter which ought to be left to the discretion of the Scotch Education Department, and that they ought not to lay down an inflexible rule from which there could be no variation. Under the proposal of the noble Earl, too, a schoolmaster having worked for years successfully in England would, if he desired to become master of a school in Scotland, have to undergo a fresh examination. It would be much better to leave the matter as it stood in the Bill.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

was also of opinion that the clause, if adopted, would cause great embarrassment.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 36: Majority 2.

Resolved in the Negative.

Clauses 54 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 57 (Removal of teachers appointed before the passing of the Act.)

LORD ABINGER moved an Amendment, to the effect that a schoolmaster who thought he had been wrongfully dismissed might appeal to the Sheriff of the county, whose decision should be final, and that such appeal might be disposed of summarily by the Sheriff on the charge and note of evidence, which it should be the duty of the school board to transmit within 10 days after intimation of the appeal; also that the provisions of the clause should apply to all schools commonly called Parliamentary schools.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

objected to the clause.

LORD ABINGER

said, he would withdraw it in favour of the new clause, of which his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had given Notice.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to omit the clause and insert— The principal teacher of a public school, whether appointed previously or subsequently 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 in writing to the sheriff of the county in which the school is situate, charging the schoolmaster 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 school- master, who shall be required on an induciæ of eight days to appear before the sheriff to answer to the said complaint; and the schoolmaster shall, if he deny the charge, and if he think fit, answer the particulars of the complaint in writing, or may, when the cause comes to be tried, state his plea to be Not Guilty; and the sheriff shall thereafter proceed to the trial of the complaint, and take the evidence, in the same way as and under the same rules as those which are in force in the Sheriff Court in regard to process in civil causes; and in the event that he shall find such complaint or any material and relevant part thereof to be proved, the sheriff shall give judgment accordingly, and pronounce sentence of deprivation, which sentence shall be final, and not subject to review. (2.) If the school board having the management of any public school shall consider that the principal teacher thereof is incompetent, unfit, or inefficient, they may apply to the Board of Education to require a special report thereon from Her Majesty's inspector for the district; and on receiving such report the Board of Education 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.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

objected to the clause, on the ground that it would apply to the old as well as the new masters, and also to all schools.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, he wished to see a more easy and economical way proposed of getting rid of schoolmasters than existed under the Act of 1851. He gave an instance of a case where the cost of this process was no less than £500, which amount was charged on the county rates. It could hardly be expected that parishes would seek to remove such unfit schoolmasters at such a cost.

On Question? Clause struck out; and new clause inserted, with Amendments.

Clauses 58 to 64, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 65 (Conscience Clause).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to omit the words— In every such school the secular instruction on each ordinary school day shall be continuous during four hours at least, without prejudice to any reasonable interval for recreation, and no instruction in religious subjects shall be given and no religious observance shall take place, except before the commencement and after the termination, or before the commencement, or after the termination, of the elementary secular instruction of the day, and the time for any instruction in religious subjects, and for any religious observance in a school,"— and insert instead thereof— The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction given in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school for elementary instruction shall be at either the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and at the end of such meeting, and. These were the words of the Conscience Clause of the English Act. This was the clause in the English Act, which had worked for nearly two years, and, as the most rev. Prelate had testified, had acted satisfactorily. He wished to give four opportunities of religious instruction instead of two, and to get rid of the requirement of four hours' continuous secular instruction.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

hoped that the noble Duke in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment. It was much better than the Government proposal, which would be very inconvenient in the rural parishes.

LORD KINNAIRD

also hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, it was the very farthest from the intention of the Lord Advocate in drawing up this clause to place greater restrictions upon religious education in Scotland than was the case in England. After the expression of opinion which had fallen from their Lordships, he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 (Parents to provide elementary education for their children, and when unable to pay fees to apply to school board).

LORD ABINGER moved in line 28, to substitute "school board" for "parochial board." The object of his Amendment was to provide that the school-pence of children whose parents did not pay for their education should be supplied, not out of the poor fund of the parochial board, but out of the school fund of the school board.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

hoped the House would not assent to the proposed alteration in the clause.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

also opposed the Amendment.

LORD COLONSAY

said, he did not object to the parochial board ascertaining what parents really were unable to pay for sending their children to school; but he did object to the education of such children being paid for out of the poor fund. The class of persons now in question were not paupers, and the education of pauper children was already provided for.

LORD LYTTELTON

said, that a pauper was a person who could not pay for the necessaries of life for himself or his children, and they would never place the matter upon a right footing until education was treated as a necessary of life for a child. A man who could not afford to pay for his child's education was practically a pauper.

LORD COLONSAY

entirely dissented from that doctrine.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, he should move to omit this clause, and also Clauses 67, 68, 69, and 70 (the compulsory clauses), in order to insert the 74th section of the English Elementary Act. It was a question, first, whether they should make secular education compulsory, and, secondly, whether they should apply that principle in a more penal manner to Scotland than it was applied to this country. In the English Act the compulsory principle had only been applied by the vote of school boards, and the penalty was very light. The present Bill made compulsory education statutory, and the penalty much heavier. He would be glad to learn that education had produced the practical benefits that were foretold by its advocates when it was first supported by public grants—namely, diminution of drunkenness and crime. He feared it had not produced those results, and was far from being a panacea for all evils, and therefore he thought such penal clauses as these unjustifiable.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the clauses in the Bill had been framed to suit a country where a school board was established in every parish, and would answer better than the clause in the English Act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 (Defaulting parents may be proceeded against by the procurator fiscal on certificate from the board).

Clause amended by reducing the penalty on parent for not sending his child to school from 40 shillings to 20 shillings.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68 (Method of procedure) agreed to.

Clause 69 (Employers of children shall be deemed to undertake the duty of a parent, but parent not thereby exempted from liability).

LORD ABINGER moved to omit the clause.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, many persons preferred this mode of securing attendance to direct compulsion.

Clause, inclusive, agreed to.

Clauses 70 to 73, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 74 (Teachers appointed under this Act not subject to provisions of 9 & 10 Vict., c. ccxxvi.).

LORD KINNAIRD moved to omit the clause and substitute new Clause (This Act not to affect Schoolmasters' Widows' Fund Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. ccxxvi.).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, the clause in the Bill and the noble Lord's clause both aimed at the same thing. He promised to see whether there was any legal flaw in the clause, and state the result on the Report.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.

Schedules agreed to.

Preamble.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

expressed his conviction that the Bill ought to contain some recognition of religious teaching. He did not propose any enacting clause on the subject, nor would he suggest that any particular course should be dictated to the school boards or the managers of the schools. Believing, however, that the principle ought to be recognized, he would move the insertion, after line 20, of the following words:— ("And whereas it has been the usage in Scotland, sanctioned by legislation, to make provision for religious instruction in public schools as an essential part of education, and it is desirable in extending the system of education to afford means for continuing such religious instruction to all children whose parents do not decline it on conscientious grounds.")

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, that there was no one who had taken a prominent part in this measure who had not been denounced in different parts of Scotland as worse than an infidel for supporting a Bill in which no provision was made for religious teaching. Those denunciations were entirely unjustifiable, because there was no man who had supported the Bill who was not anxious to maintain the use and wont of Scotland—namely, that religion should form part of the education in the schools—and there was no man to whom he had spoken on the subject who would not reject the Bill if he thought that religious education would be excluded under its provisions. The mode, however, in which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) proposed to recognize this religious teaching was much the same as if in a Mutiny Bill he were to insert a declaration recognizing the bravery of the British Army. It started, too, with a proposition which was incorrect; for he (the Earl of Dalhousie) utterly denied that legislation had ever given the smallest sanction to the teaching of religion in the parish schools of Scotland. He would challenge his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Colonsay) to put his hand upon a single clause, in any Act of Parliament from the reign of James IV. to the present time, in which it was enacted that religion in any shape should be taught in any school in Scotland. If the noble Duke would consent to strike out the words "sanctioned by legislation," there could, he thought, be no objection to the Amendment.

LORD COLONSAY

was understood to say, that although the Scottish Parliament had never adopted any measure containing any express enactment on the subject, the importance of religious teaching in the schools had been frequently recognized by the Legislature.

After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON,

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, there was one point in which he thought his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond) would agree with him—namely, that in regard to all questions dealing with religion we ought to act with perfect sincerity both to ourselves and to others. Now, his complaint against the proposed Amendment to the Preamble was that it was not entirely sincere. Without entering into the question as to whether or not previous legislation had directly sanctioned religious teaching in Scotland, there could be no doubt that legislative sanction had been given to it in the indirect sense referred to by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Colonsay). But how was it given? It was given, first of all, by the terms of a Preamble, which went much further than anything now suggested; for under the earlier Acts of the Scottish Parliament no one was allowed to teach in any college, school, or private house in Scotland who did not belong to the Established Church, whichever that happened to be at the time. In those days legislators did not understand the doctrine of toleration; and whichever Church had the upper hand—whether Presbyterians or Episcopalians—they would not allow anyone to teach in schools, colleges, or private houses who had not the sanction of the Presbyteries or of the Bishops, as the case might be. Only in that sense was religious teaching sanctioned by legislation. He argued that the same principle should apply now. In his judgment, we ought to trust for religious teaching in the confidence we reposed in the management of the schools by the local authorities; and he believed religious teaching would be continued in Scotland by the local boards just as much as if the matter were left in the hands of Presbyteries or Bishops. The Legislature formerly defined no religious instruction and indicated no religious books whatever, but simply trusted in the managing Bodies of the schools, which at that time were always closely connected with the Church of the country. This state of things had, however, passed away. We had to deal with another state of things, and he would appeal to the friends of religious education in Scotland to accept the same security as had satisfied the friends of religious education in this country. To the second part of the Amendment he strongly objected, because it stated this was a Bill to afford means for continuing religious instruction to all children whose parents did not object to it on conscientious grounds. This was an inaccuracy, for the Bill afforded no means for religious instruction. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent a school board from setting up a secular school, and noble Lords opposite had not moved an Amendment to prevent their doing so. Therefore the words of the present Amendment were not strictly accurate, and the Preamble, if amended as proposed, would be simply a red rag held out to a bull. What use could there be in inserting words which would be practically useless, and which were clearly inaccurate?

LORD CAIRNS

said, he was sorry to hear the noble Duke compare the recognition of religious teaching to the holding out of a red rag to a bull. If there was any insincerity—which he denied—in the Amendment proposed to the Preamble, there was insincerity in every word of the noble Duke's speech on the second reading—because the burden of that speech was that means were afforded by the Bill for continuing religious instruction in Scotland according to "use and wont."

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he had stated that no obstruction would be thrown in the way of giving religious instruction.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he put a plainer and simpler construction on the words, and maintained that when, in enlarging our system of education, we threw no obstruction in the way of continuing the useful work which had hitherto prevailed, it was correct to say that we afforded means for continuing that work. He contended that every word of the Amendment to the Preamble was strictly accurate; and, moreover, he affirmed that legislation had sanctioned religious teaching in Scotland. The statute of 1657 had in its Preamble the words—"Inasmuch as by all laws and constitutions it is provided that a youth be brought up in the fear of God and good manners." Was not that legislative sanction? The noble Duke opposite might call it indirect sanction; but it was direct sanction, clearly enough. The whole burden of that Act, its very foundation, was that there ought to be religious education in schools. Then the Act of 1861 also provided that the schoolmaster should make a declaration that he had conformed his teaching to certain formularies, not only of the Holy Scriptures, but would conform to the formularies admitted by the Kirk of Scotland. He was therefore amused to hear the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) say that by no statute had the Legislature of Scotland sanctioned religious teaching. The words "afford means" in the Amendment left the matter of religious teaching open to all. There were many legislators who wanted to shut the door altogether against religious teaching. To that noble Lords on his side of the House, at any rate, most strongly objected. They wished to afford means. They desired to declare that those means were afforded, provided that local boards desired to make use of them, subject to the Conscience Clause. He hoped, therefore, Parliament would make their intention clear by adopting this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he thought the interpretation their Lordships had just heard was a very farfetched one, for the purpose of introducing the words "afford means" into the Preamble. The funds which would be raised by this Bill would be applied to the general purposes of education in schools, and there would be no obstruction to the imparting of religious instruction in schools. Therefore, tde Bill coulh not be fairly described as a Bill which would prohibit the imparting of religious instruction in schools, and he, for one, should be extremely sorry to vote for the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that the Act of 1861 was the first statute that wholly dissevered the State from all connection with religious teaching. Before then every schoolmaster had to sign a confession of faith that he was a member of the Established Church, and the Act of 1861 liberated them from the necessity of so doing; and now any person, no matter what his religion was, if otherwise qualified, might be elected a schoolmaster, but with the proviso that he was not to attack the Bible or Shorter Catechism. He admitted that the words as read by his noble Friend opposite would appear to bear the construction he had put upon them; but this did not apply to doctrine, but to the declaration the schoolmaster made.

VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE

supported some declaration of religious teaching, which, in his opinion, should lie at the bottom of all education, and with that feeling he should support the Amendment of the noble Duke. It was of the utmost importance that Parliament should make such a declaration as that proposed.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, if a parochial teacher were at this moment to decline the use of the Bible, or to teach the Shorter Catechism in his school, there was no Act of Parliament under which he could be punished.

On Question, whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 32: Majority 21.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Words inserted accordingly.

Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 210.)

House adjourned at Twelve o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.