Lords Sitting of 16 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision (No. 2)* (217); Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* (218); Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* (220); Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000)*; Mines (Coal) Regulation* (224); Grand Juries (Ireland)* (225); Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (226); Victoria Park* (227).
Second Reading—Summary Jurisdiction* (200).
Report of Select Committee—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102–215–216).
Report—Church of England Fire Insurance* (102–215–216); Inclosure Law Amendment (204–221); Education (Scotland) (210–222); Registration of Births and Deaths* (179–223).
Third Reading—Court of Chancery (Funds)* (205); Treaty of Washington* (191); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (184), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.
  ARGUMENT.
  Argument of the United States delivered to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva 15th June 1872: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.—North America No. 12. (1872).
INCLOSURE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (Nos.204–221.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 (Allotments for recreation ground and field garden out of common).
LORD REDESDALEobjected to the provision by which, in the case of every inclosure, there should be an allotment of not less than one-tenth of the whole extent of the common for the purpose of recreation grounds and field gardens. Such a provision ought not to be assented to. Were the lords of the soil and the commoners to be told that they must not have an inclosure, except on the condition of giving up one-tenth of the land? That was a new principle.
THE EARL OF MORLEYdenied that the principle was new. Under the Act of 1845 the Inclosure Commissioners had power to make allotments for field gardens and recreation grounds.
LORD REDESDALEcontended that the principle was new, because the word "shall" was now proposed to be substituted for "may." In some commons there were persons who had a just claim to have such allotments made, and it was therefore necessary that the Commissioners should have power to award them; but where no one had any such right, to make the allotment compulsory was an invasion of property.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if the thing was wrong in principle, it was wrong whether done directly by an Act of Parliament or indirectly through Commissioners. By the Bill now before their Lordships nothing more was proposed but that which the Act of 1845 gave the Commissioners a discretion to do. There was no invasion of property in the case.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that the proposition for the allotment of one-tenth or 50 acres as a minimum, when the common exceeded 500 acres, was carried in the Committee of the House of Commons by the casting vote of the Chairman, and could not be called the opinion of the House. There was a recommendation also that the extent and peculiar nature of each kind of private rights should be taken into account when such an allotment was being made, which showed that a minimum could not be intended to be absolutely enforced. In some places there were no people to enjoy recreation grounds. He knew of some places inclosed under the present law where a small allotment had been made for recreation, which was now waste, because no one used or wished to use it; and such places would hereafter be found where one-tenth of the common would under this scheme be wasted. The theorists would not look at existing facts; but it was the duty of this House not to overlook them. With the view of securing that not more than one-tenth or 50 acres should in any case be allotted, he begged to move the omission of the word "less," in order that the word "more" might be inserted in its stead.
THE EARL OF MORLEYhoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. If the Amendment were adopted, it would be impossible to allot for the purposes of field gardens and recreation grounds more than one-tenth of the whole extent, or 50 acres, whatever the size of the inclosure, and the minimum regulation would be cut out of the Bill. That would defeat completely the objects contemplated by the Bill—namely, to afford recreation ground in accordance with the population in the neighbourhood of the inclosure. The Commissioners were to have regard to all the circumstances which ought to be considered in making an allotment. True, the allotment of a minimum of one-tenth in some cases and of at least 50 acres in all others was compulsory, because the justification of this Bill was, that in the opinion of the country and of the House of Commons, the Commissioners had not exercised their discretion as to allotment in a sufficiently liberal manner, the percentage of public allotment for field gardens and recreation grounds having been only 1 per cent of the whole of the inclosed

1219
land. So strongly had the Committee of 1869 felt on the subject, that they recommended to Parliament that no further inclosures should be allowed until a principle should be established upon which public allotments should in every case be set out. The principle of this Bill was to lay down a minimum and not a maximum. He trusted their Lordships would not pass this Amendment, which was contrary to public opinion, and to the opinion of the House of Commons.
LORD ORMATHWAITEthought it was going too far to assume that the opinion of the country and of the House of Commons was in favour of this Bill, merely because the Committee of the House of Commons had made certain recommendations which had not yet been acted upon by that House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobjected to the fallacy that whenever Parliament was asked to remove any small impediment which stood between individuals and their rights, Parliament was entitled to levy black mail on the persons who came to it, requesting the necessary facility. What Parliament had to do was to give effect to existing rights and remove impediments, and not follow the example of the ancient Robbers of the Rhine, who levied toll on all who passed under their castles. Such conduct was hardly worthy of the honesty which Parliament was bound to profess and act on. The next fallacy to which he objected was that involved in the sentiment to which noble Lords opposite were so fond of referring—that "public opinion" was in favour of the measure. Now what did "public opinion" mean in such a case? A few articles in newspapers and a few speeches from crotchety orators. It was a favourite resource of the Bench opposite to threaten their Lordships with an autumn agitation; but they could scarcely be threatened with an autumn agitation about such a Bill as this. He did not suppose that the cry for the abolition of the House of Lords could be revived on this Inclosure Bill. Those references to "public opinion" were not very wise. There was a small, but he admitted, noisy party who thought their opinion ought always to prevail with their Lordships; but what their Lordships' House had in all cases to do was to endeavour to ascertain the right course, and carry it out without regard to what might be said of
1220
them. In the case under consideration he thought a discretion ought to be left to the Commissioners, and that the Bill ought not to lay down so rigid a rule as it did in respect of the space to be allotted for field gardens and recreation grounds.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not agree with the noble Marquess in thinking there were two fallacies in the arguments adduced in favour of this clause; but he hoped the noble Marquess would not be angry with him, if he said that he had made use of two fallacies in answering those arguments. The first fallacy assumed by the noble Marquess was, that whenever anyone came to Parliament for permission to exercise his rights, Parliament was entitled to levy "black mail" on that person; but the noble Marquess had fallen into an error on that point. This was not a question of the exercise of rights. If the lord of the manor possessed those rights which the noble Marquess supposed him to possess, he would have nothing to do but exercise them, and he need not come to Parliament. Nothing could be more certain than that the lord of the manor and the two-thirds of the commoners would not have had the power of making an inclosure but for the Act of 1845. When confiscation was spoken of with reference to this Bill, he would ask whether the Act of 1845, which gave the lord of the manor and two-thirds of the commoners the right to inclose a part against the will of the remaining one-third of the commoners was confiscation? He did not believe it was, nor did he believe this Bill was confiscation; but certainly the term would be quite as applicable to the Act of 1845 as to this Bill. He held that if persons who had not a right came to Parliament to have a right conferred upon them, Parliament, acting in the public interest, had a right to annex conditions to the granting of the right without exposing itself to the charge of levying black mail. The second fallacy assumed by the noble Marquess was that the "public opinion" spoken of in this case was that of a few newspaper articles and a few crotchet-mongers. A Committee of the House of Commons had recommended that no further inclosure should be allowed until the law was altered. Was not that an expression of public opinion? He thought the opinion of the House of Commons might be quoted as that of the country. His

1221
noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) had quoted it as against the existing law, but he had not claimed the sanction of the House of Commons for this Bill, because it had not been before the House of Commons yet. This Bill was not one of confiscation; it was an "enabling Bill," because it enabled the lords and the commoners to extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they were now involved.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought that before their Lordships went further with this Bill, the Government ought to tell them what were its chances in "another place." From a statement which Mr. Gladstone was reported to have made last night, it would appear that the right hon. Gentleman regarded it as doubtful whether this Bill could be proceeded with in the present Session.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not the words of his right hon. Friend before him, but he believed Mr. Gladstone had mentioned the Bill as one which the Government were anxious to have passed.
LORD REDESDALEmaintained that the Bill would inflict great injustice, if this question were not left to the discretion of the Commissioners, as the circumstances in one case might differ widely from those in another.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, the public had at least quasi rights for recreation and other purposes, and if they were taken away, were fairly entitled to compensation in the shape of recreation grounds for the inclosure of open spaces of which they had had the use.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that nothing could be more absurd than to lay down that a certain extent of recreation ground must be allotted. Regard ought to be had to the circumstances of the locality. There had been a great outcry in some places against any invasion of the public right to use commons for recreation and other enjoyment, when the area was far greater than was required for the purpose—as take the case of the New Forest.
On Question, That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 67; Not-Contents 60: Majority 7.
THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved to insert after Clause 5 the following clause;—
1222
"Where the commissioners receive such application and undertaking as hereinafter mentioned, they may, in their Provisional Order relating to any land proposed to be inclosed, specify that one of the terms and conditions of the inclosure thereof is the appropriation, in addition to the recreation ground required by this Act to be allotted, of paths or rides or drives for the exercise and recreation of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The provisions of the General Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1872, relating to allotments for recreation grounds (including those relating to the vesting of the soil in any private person with his consent), shall extend to any allotment made under this section; and the soil therein, if not vested in any private person, may be vested in the churchwardens and overseers, local authority, or other trustees.
"An application for the purpose of this section may be made by the local authority of any town or the vestry of any parish in, or in the neighbourhood of, which the land proposed to be inclosed is situate, or by any private person or persons being occupiers or owners of land in the neighbourhood of the land proposed to be inclosed.
"Such application shall be accompanied by an undertaking by the applicants to maintain any path, ride, or drive which may be allotted in pursuance of such application, and any local authority and vestry may give such undertaking. The Provisional Order which provides for the allotment of any path, ride, or drive, shall specify the said application and undertaking, and such undertaking shall, when such Provisional Order is confirmed by Parliament, have effect as if it were enacted by Parliament.
"Where the commissioners are satisfied that the rents received from the field gardens allotted in pursuance of any Provisional Order will be sufficient to maintain any path, ride, or drive which may be allotted in pursuance of that Order, they may act under this section without requiring any such undertaking as aforesaid."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, this was an extraordinary proposition, for it amounted to no less than this—that paths, rides, and drives for the wealthy should be provided by the lord of the manor and the commoners. After such a proposition he was only astonished at the moderation of the Government. He only wondered that they did not require the lord of the manor and the commoners to contribute a large sum to the Consolidated Fund by way of compensation for inclosure.
LORD REDESDALEmost distinctly objected to the portion of this clause which, among the parties who might make application for an allotment for paths, rides, and drives, included "any private person or persons being occupiers or owners of land in the neighbourhood of the land proposed to be inclosed." He moved the omission of those words.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, their Lordships might consent to strain the rights

1223
of property when the question was one of providing field gardens and recreation grounds for the humbler classes; but to strain them in order to provide rides and drives for the wealthier classes would throw ridicule on the whole thing.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as roads were already allotted, he did not see anything absurd in going a step further and allotting rides and drives. A clause containing provision for such allotment was withdrawn when the Bill was in Committee, because in that clause no provision was made for the maintenance of the rides and drives. The clause now provided that the applicants for such allotment must give an undertaking for the maintenance of rides and drives, except in cases where the Commissioners were satisfied that the rents received from field gardens would be sufficient for their maintenance.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that under the clause a person who took a house for six weeks in the neighbourhood of the inclosure might apply for an allotment for rides and drives.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But he must undertake their maintenance.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: He may undertake, but where is the guarantee?
EARL GRANVILLE: The Commissioners are to be "satisfied" of that.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 65; Not-Contents 67: Majority 2.
Words struck out.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 (Definition of suburban common).
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit the word "boundaries," in order to insert the words "town-hall, post-office, or parish church, as the Commissioners may in each case appoint." By taking either of those places as the point of measurement, substantial justice would be done, without in any way interfering with the object for which the Bill was proposed.
THE EARL OF MORLEYadmitted that there were difficulties in the case, but
1224
believed that the Amendment of the noble Lord would not diminish them.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 221.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)

(NOS. 210–222.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Further Amendments made.
Clause 15 (First election of school boards).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved at end of clause to insert a Proviso—
"That no teacher of a public school in any parish or burgh shall be eligible as a member of a school board under this Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 (Public schools).
LORD COLONSAY LORD COLONSAY moved to insert at the end of clause—
("But nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the schoolmasters in existing parish schools which, under the operations of this Act, may be deemed to be burgh schools, or their successors in office, to participate in the benefits of any bequest for behoof of the schoolmasters of parochial schools, or the powers, rights, and privileges of the trustees or administrators of any such bequests").
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 (Consents to transference).
LORD COLONSAYsaid, that the clause proposed that the consent of any number of persons having the administration of the trusts in which any school is held to the transference of such school to a school board under this Act should be given "by a majority sufficient for any ordinary act of trust management." He proposed to strike out these words and substitute—
("By a majority of not less than three-fourths having the administration of such trusts present at a meeting duly summoned for such purpose").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the proposal, on the ground that the provisions contained in the Bill—which would in some instances be more, and in none less stringent than those in operation—would meet all the requirements of the case.
LORD COLONSAYsaid, that as the Bill proposed to make extraordinary enactments, extraordinary provisions

1225
ought to be made in order to prevent a complete reversal of the existing state of things.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought it was not only the right, but the duty of Parliament to take such steps as would prevent the possibility of breaches of trust being committed.
After some discussion "two-thirds" were substituted for "three-fourths," and the Amendment, thus amended, was agreed to.
Clause 64 (Removal of principal teachers).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the proposals of the Bill with regard to charges of unfitness or incompetency against school teachers was not satisfactory, and proposed to insert in the clause—
("And within ten days after receiving the copy of such report the teacher shall be entitled to make application to the Board of Education to allow him to be heard before the said board in defence, and the board shall be thereafter entitled to allow such further inquiry as they may think right: Provided also, that if they shall find that the incompetency, unfitness, or inefficiency of the teacher arises from infirmity or old age, or is not occasioned by his own fault, he shall be entitled, in the case of teachers of parish schools in office at the passing of this Act, to a retiring allowance, the amount whereof shall not be less than two third parts of the amount of the salary pertaining to said office at the date of such judgment, and shall not exceed the gross amount of such salary, which retiring allowance shall be payable in all respects in like manner with the salary of the schoolmaster; and in the case of other teachers, to a retiring allowance of such amount as the school board shall determine").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought the provision contained at the end of Clause 65 would save the rights of teachers under the existing law.
After short conversation, Amendment negatived.
Clause 66 (Higher class public schools.—Burgh).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Duke had admitted on behalf of the Government that it was highly important to maintain the high standard of education which had obtained in Scotland up to the present time. This certainly could not be accomplished if the standard of examination for teachers were lowered, and he therefore would move to omit, page 25, line 9, from ("A") to ("same") in line 16, and insert—
1226
("Board of examiners of higher class public schools, and for fixing and ascertaining the qualifications of candidates for the office of teacher therein shall be constituted as follows: one member to be appointed by the university court of each university in Scotland, two to be appointed by the Scotch Education Department, and one to be appointed by the Educational Institute of Scotland, the first appointments to be made within three months after the passing of this Act, and the examiners appointed to hold office for three years, and to be capable of re-election; such board of examiners shall possess all the powers and discharge all the duties with reference to certificates of competency for higher class public schools, which are by sections 61, 62, and 63, of this Act vested in the Scotch Education Department, and the examiners appointed by the said department with reference to certificates of competency for other public schools, and every candidate for a certificate under this section shall pay such fee as may be determined from time to time by the Scotch Education Department").
The Bill provided that in the case of the higher class schools the school boards should fix the standard of qualification for the teachers, and should appoint Examiners to conduct an inquiry into their competency, but did not give the same powers to the boards of the local schools. He should move another Amendment, calculated, as he thought, to ensure that the qualifications of the masters should be ascertained by a competent Board of Examiners—namely, in page 26, line 16, leave out from ("by") to end of sub-section and insert—
("The said board of examiners, or any of their number appointed by them, and the examiners shall make a report of the examination of such school to the school board having the management thereof; and the expenses of all examinations under this section, including such remuneration to each examiner as shall be fixed by the Scotch Education Department, shall be defrayed out of the fees paid by candidates as aforesaid, together with such further sum from the school fund of the parish or burgh in which each such school is situated, as may be determined by the Scotch Education Department").
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had no objection to the general object of the noble Duke's proposals, but he objected to the way in which he proposed to carry them out. He thought that it indicated great distrust in the constituents of the school boards, upon whom would devolve the duty of carrying out the provisions of the Bill when it had become law. The existing higher class schools were for the most part under the management of the town councils, which had been elected by the ratepayers, and as their mode of management had not been open to objection—the Edinburgh High

1227
School, which which had acquired so great a reputation, having been from time immemorial under the management of the Town Council—he did not see why there was any reason to distrust the school boards, which would be under the Bill similarly constituted. It should be remembered that the Privy Council gave no assistance to the high schools. He did not know that the Educational Institute of Scotland—one of the bodies to whom the noble Duke proposed to commit the nomination of one of the Examiners—was a body that commanded any great amount of respect. Not the least of his objections to the proposal of the noble Duke was, that the cost of examinations should be defrayed by the candidates who offered themselves for examination as schoolmasters.
LORD KINNAIRDthought the appointment of Examiners by town councils was to be deprecated, because the natural tendency of such bodies was to procure the cheapest rather than the most efficient teachers; but, at the same time, he did not think that the proposals of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) would produce such a Board of Examiners as was required. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEheld that these schools being endowed schools, it was both the right and the duty of Parliament to make them as efficient as possible. The principle of the Amendment—namely, that there should be an independent examination both of teachers and of schools—was a good one. It ought not to be in the power of any school board, desiring to "make things pleasant," to appoint an Examiner who would say that everything was going on satisfactorily. That under the existing system, the Scotch schoolmasters were, as a body, competent and able men was rather in spite of than in consequence of the manner in which they were appointed.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDreminded the noble Duke opposite that, unless he was misinformed, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer exacted from the candidates attending the competitive examinations for the Civil Service certain fees, which went towards paying the expenses of the examinations. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Duke would not refuse to follow the example set him by that high authority.
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Oontents 38: Majority 4.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in rising to move an Amendment forbidding the teaching in any school of any catechism or any religious formulary distinctive of any particular denomination, said:—My Lords, on Friday week, in the course of his speech on the second reading of the Bill, the noble Duke who introduced it expressed himself as strongly opposed to secular education. I shall not follow the noble Duke into argument on that topic. I confess I have always thought that in theory the doctrine of the division of labour holds good with regard to instruction, and that in practice a system which has had so large a share in the education of America and Canada cannot be considered as otherwise than a success. But the noble Duke almost challenged your Lordships to bring forward an Amendment with the view of reconciling the Scotch and English Act as regards catechisms. Under such a challenge I could not conscientiously remain silent; and though I fear I shall not receive the support of many of your Lordships, I will briefly, at this critical hour of the evening, explain the reasons which induce me to bring forward my Amendment. In the first place, my Lords, we are told that there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. That, indeed, would be a grave objection, if it were founded on fact; but, my Lords, I deny that it is founded on fact, and, even admitting the religious difficulty to be comparatively small, I assert that that is owing to conditions which will cease to operate when you have passed this Act. It is true, so far, that the religious difficulty in Scotland is smaller than that in England or in Ireland. But it is not of the entirely microscopic character which some have thought fit to describe it. One-seventh of the population of Scotland have not merely no connection with, but an antagonism to, Presbyterianism. But, again, there are, as the noble Duke knows perfectly well, Presbyterians and Presbyterians. The United Presbyterians form the third largest religious Body in Scotland. What has been the course taken with regard to education by the United Presbyterians? That Body has made an annual declara-

1229
tion since 1847—for 25 years—for the complete separation of secular and religious education. They consider, rightly, or wrongly, that the State has nothing whatever to do with religious education, which they regard as the prerogative of the parent and the Church. So it is not perfectly accurate to represent the whole of Scotland as ready to accept the Shorter Catechism, as a part of school education. But let us take the experience of qualified persons. Who is the man of all Scotland whom we should choose, perhaps, as most qualified to speak with authority on this subject? We should all probably say, Dr. Lyon Playfair. What does he say—
"Practically, we ought to have no difficulties of religion to contend with; but actually there is at present much religious excitement in Scotland about this Bill. I cannot deny that chiefly on account of the ecclesiastical obstacles which have been put in the way of educational progress since 1854, there is a rapidly growing desire among the people for separating secular and religious instruction in the school, with the view of confiding the latter to the Churches."
That seems to me to be an opinion, the force and weight and authority of which it is impossible to deny; and I think that the noble Duke will find it difficult to prove that it is mathematically correct to continue to divide the people of Scotland into the two simple classes of Shorter Catechumens and Shorter Catechists. But I believe that even if the religious difficulty be really smaller in Scotland than in England, there is a cause for this which will cease to operate after the passing of this Act. For 25 years the religious difficulty has become more and more active and pressing in the United Kingdom. For 25, years the United Presbyterian Synod has sounded the key-note of secular education; and for 25 years you have been dangling an Education Bill before the people of Scotland. During those years there has been a general consent to await the result of your decisions, and, meanwhile, at any cost, to procure the best possible education for the children; but that has always been considered as a provisional state of things. A Scotch parent will stick at little to obtain the necessary instruction for his children. He may dislike being compelled to have them taught dogmatic religion with the three R's; but he has known that there would be no three R's procurable otherwise. It may be licking
1230
honey off thorns; but, then, no honey can be got in any other way. He has always been hoping for the time when Parliament should settle this question, and he no longer be compelled to sue for education at the door of another Church. But when you produce your settlement, and he sees it is no settlement, will there be no religious difficulty then? I know that Roman Catholic children have sat through the Shorter Catechism; but that has been harder for them than total exclusion. For not merely have they been forced, in order to secure secular education, to learn the Shorter Catechism—which is difficult—but to remain good Catholics, they have had to do what is perhaps more difficult—to unlearn the Shorter Catechism. Yet, because people have done all this—in view of the approaching settlement of the question—rather than not learn to read, write, and reckon, it is said that there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. He would be a bold man who would predict that such a settlement as this will last for 20 years; nor do I think you can easily disregard the names that appear on the rolls of that association, from whom I had the honour the other night to present a Petition in favour of this Amendment. It will be, I confess, a very extraordinary thing to me if in face of these facts, and these synodal declarations, and these distinguished and influential persons who are opposed to your system, and the English Education Act itself staring you in the face, this Bill shall be considered a settlement of the question. But I will bring forward another argument. You must remember that hitherto rates for education have been paid by the heritors alone; but they are now to fall on the whole body of ratepayers. Now, I suppose we all know the searching nature of rates? We have all had our little experience of them. Noble Lords who live south of the Tweed need only think of church rates, and noble Lords north of the Tweed of the annuity tax. Do you not suppose that these persons who are thus to acquire the privilege of paying a rate will look out with uncommon sharpness to what they are paying for? Will not this rate, judging from experience, very likely discover diversities of creed and niceties of conscience even where they have not hitherto shown themselves? This Bill will indeed form an epoch in the dismal

1231
history of rates if it be not so. You are about deliberately to put into the hands of that large class of persons who will avail themselves of any means of defence against a rate, and of those to whom the rate is a considerable burden—the tremendous weapon of sectarian difference and conscientious difficulty. And you think they will not use it? But then, my Lords, such a clause as this would lead to what is broadly and coarsely termed Godless education. That is an accusation to which I attach very little importance. So far from this being the case I should be content to rest my advocacy of this Amendment on the interests of religious teaching; for how will this Bill teach religion? You are to get some odd moments during the day; you are to get the rinçures—the rinsings—of secular education; for you cannot expect that the schoolmaster will devote more pains to fit himself for the religious half-hour than for the secular four hours. But even if that be not his wish, the school board elected by the ratepayers will probably take good care that it is so. Then what will the teacher teach at these spare moments? It is perfectly clear—the Shorter Catechism. It is the Shorter Catechism to which the people of Scotland, as we are told, cling; it is in the Shorter Catechism that instruction will be given at these odd times to children between 5 and 13. But now as to instruction in this Shorter Catechism—and instruction given, mind, as a recognized part of the school teaching, and not in the hole-and-corner manner proposed by the Bill—the language of the Commissioners of 1867 is clear and precise. As long as they kept to the beaten track of the Catechism questions, the answers were delightfully clear and precise; but the moment they deviated from that path in the least, they were met with blank looks and appalling ignorance. But is this wonderful? Have your Lordships ever read the Shorter Catechism? It is described on its cover as being designed for the use of those of "weaker capacity." I open it at hap-hazard, and find this formidable question—
"What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, or sanctification?"
If that is a question suitable for the weaker capacities of Scotland, I feel moved to take the greatest pride in the
1232
stronger intellects of my native country. But seriously, I ask you, my Lords, which is the true friend to religious education, the man who would instruct a child in such matters as these at odd moments, or he who would relegate such awful and intricate subjects to separate and careful instruction? I contend that religious instruction to be efficient should be at least as full, as definite, and as careful as any other department of education. Teaching religion by making the child commit to memory the Shorter Catechism is like teaching Greek without a grammar—or the man who read Euclid through like a novel, in order to improve his reasoning powers. But, my Lords, while we are talking of the Shorter Catechism, I may fairly avow that what I have read in the Report submitted by the noble Duke's (the Duke of Argyll's) Commission in 1867 would make me doubtful on other grounds as to the wisdom of teaching the Shorter Catechism to these young children. Take the following extract from the Report:—
"All the ministers acknowledged that the children were not expected to understand the answers; but they held that the answers being taught in childhood clung to the people's memories as they grew up, and were valuable, not only as intellectual, but as moral discipline."
That is the sole apology. It may, indeed, be moral discipline to learn that by rote which you cannot understand, but it is assuredly not intellectual discipline—
"One minister considered the Catechism well fitted for improving the memories of the young."
This is an advantage shared by Gray's Memoria Technica, and other works which do not pretend to be instruments of religious education.
"Another minister assured us that in his communion classes he always knew by the intelligence of the young people whether they had learned their Catechism or not."
Naturally, a child who can commit a pamphlet to memory of which he does not understand a word would be, to say the least, intelligent.
"And a third minister maintained that the traditional stability of the Scotch character arose out of their instruction in the Shorter Catechism."
This reason requires no comment, but it is certainly a startling illustration of cause and effect.
"Teachers and Inspectors differ in their views as to whether it should be given up. The majority, however, think it should be retained; but

1233
some would be glad to see it both simplified and modified—simplified to suit the capacities of the children"—in which case it would cease to be the Shorter Catechism—"and modified to meet with the approval of every Protestant."
In which case I need hardly say it would be, if not unique, at any rate one of the most remarkable creeds extant. Thus, then, I contend that the Shorter Catechism will not be a benefit as proposed to be taught, and that even as taught hitherto, it has not been an efficient means of education. Indeed, it might almost be said after reading the Report that from the mouths of its apologists has proceeded its condemnation as a mere ordinary subject of education. But, my Lords, see again how this Act will work without such a clause as the English Education Act contains. Suppose you have a school board in which you have a bare majority of Established Churchmen. The Established Church do not form 50 per cent of the population of Scotland; they are, however, more numerous than any other denomination. They will probably, as a rule, have majorities in the school board, and probably also, as a rule, bare majorities. Will not those bare majorities be apt to choose their schoolmaster not for his efficiency or his general ability, but because he will be a fair teacher of secular subjects and an excellent exponent of denominational religion? So that by this proviso you will be meting out short measure to the Roman Catholic or United Presbyterian child, in order to furnish excellent denominational education to the bantling of the Establishment. But, again, take the case of the teachers. Take a candidate for a school mastership. Will he not have cause to complain if, being the best secular candidate—that is, the best public teacher for the whole parish, another is preferred before him on account of superior knowledge of the Shorter Catechism? Consider, again. The schoolmaster is appointed by the school board. At the end of three years, the school board, with the bare majority of the Establishment, goes out, having made itself unpopular as having imposed a rate. It is succeeded by an opposition board, whose first care will be to get rid of its predecessor's nominee. That will secure a pleasing variety in your educational system; but I submit that such variety is hardly desirable. Nay, the reaction
1234
caused may do the very thing you wish to avoid, and drive religion altogether from the schools. But, then, let us never forget that we are fortunate enough to have a Preamble—a Preamble, historical and precise in its language, which was passed the other night with considerable pomp and circumstance. That Preamble we know is the efficient instrument which secures to us adequate religious instruction. I happen to know this, because I have been told so by persons for whose authority I have great respect. But, to tell the truth, I did not understand that Preamble at the time, and as after subsequent reflection, I understand it still less, I will take the liberty of asking a question or two. I will ask the most rev. Prelate who inaugurated the debate on Friday night by speaking with a double authority—firstly, as Prelate, and secondly as a Scotchman of whom all Scotchmen are proud, what security there is in this Bill—with its religious Preamble—for the religious teaching of that branch of the English communion which exists in Scotland? It is not, indeed, very numerous, but it is not soulless, and it will pay the rate. I will take the liberty of asking the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or the noble Duke the Earl Marshal, what security they see for the religious teaching of the members of their Church in this Bill—with its religious Preamble? Yet they form one-tenth of the population of Scotland. How long will this Bill, which provides that these sections of the community shall pay for teaching to which they are completely opposed, be a settlement of the question? Will they not have besides to provide religious instruction by their own voluntary exertions? And yet if you compel them to do so, what hardship is there in compelling others to do so? There will, indeed, be no hardship in making others do so, but there will be a hardship in compelling these to pay for religious instruction of which they entirely disapprove. But, my Lords, having said so much on the question of fact, and of justice, and of effect, let me say a final word as regards expediency. The noble Duke who introduced this Bill acknowledged at the commencement of his eloquent speech the strides which public opinion had made as regards education in the last three years. He illustrated that by stating the impossibility

1235
of the Act of 1870 now finding acceptance with that public opinion. He acknowledged towards the end of his speech the strides that public opinion has made towards the separation of secular and religious instruction, and he therefore begged your Lordships to accept the present Bill. But did he not see the logical result of his arguments? If public opinion has made these strides, why does he make this Bill less liberal and more ecclesiastical than the Bill of 1870? But, on the other hand, if public opinion is making this progress in the direction of separating secular and religious instruction, do you suppose that you can dam the progress of public opinion by a clause or a time table? A mole hill has more chance of resisting a garden roller. And this is what is called a settlement of the question! And, my Lords, remember that the proposition I am making is no new one. It is simply and solely the second section of the 14th clause of the English law of education passed the year before last. The burden of proof does not, I contend, lie with me as to its adoption, but with the noble Duke as to its rejection. These then are the reasons for which I ask your acceptance of this Amendment. Ipropose it in no fanatical spirit. If I believed that its adoption would retard for a single day the benefits which I believe this Bill will confer upon Scotland, I would certainly not ask you to pass it. I advocate it on different grounds. It is because I desire that this Bill may not cause injury throughout Scotland by sowing in every parish the dragon's teeth of religious difficulty and religious difference, but rather that it may be the permanent and peaceful solution of a vital question. I honestly and firmly believe that this Bill is no such settlement; I honestly and firmly believe that as regards the question of religious instruction it contains the elements of neither permanence nor peace.
Amendment moved in line 12, after ("Department") insert—
("And no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in any such school.")—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
LORD LYTTELTONhoped the House would not assent to this proposition. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who caused the adoption of
1236
this rule in the English Act, did so with the best intentions, and was a true friend to education. But he believed it had done more than anything else to alienate from that Act the mind of the great body of the English clergy, and of very many of the laity. And a main reason was, that while appearing to be impartial, it in truth, put some religious Bodies under a special disadvantage, inasmuch as some such Bodies, as the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the Presbyterian, and, he believed, the Wesleyan valued their formularies, while others had none, or did not care about them. In the English Church, not from any fancy, but from the actual injunction of its authority, these formularies were required to be taught to children. Now, what was the exact meaning of the clause? It could not mean such a mere sham as that certain words were forbidden, but the same sense might be taught. The spirit of the clause, no doubt, was to a great extent observed now in schools, and it was quite proper to teach children in a simple and un-controversial way; but it would probably be found that such teaching was within the limits of what used to be called "orthodox Dissent;" and it answered precisely, because it was not defined by law, but was left to the good sense and discretion of teachers and managers. It would be quite different in the construction, subject to legal appeal, of the express words of a statute—and what religion would that be, which was to contain only what was common to Roman Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, nay, even Jews? We knew that, writers such as the French expressly said, that the essence of true religion might be equally held by Jews as by Christians. That was true subjectively, but could not apply to external teaching, which must involve some definite statements. He believed it could only issue in what he thought the most stupendous nonsense ever propounded—the reading of the Bible to children without a word of explanation. He regretted that such an Amendment had been proposed by a man of the high promise of the noble Earl, not that his speech had much to do with it, for it was a speech simply in favour of secular schools. But the Amendment was well known. He believed it either to be based on a mischievous fallacy, or to be an utter sham.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was utterly at a loss to know what good purpose was expected to be served by moving this Amendment, and that the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) seemed to have paid no attention to what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had said in moving the second reading of the Bill, of the preposterous absurdity of a Christian State, or of a State professing to be Christian, prohibiting the education of its children in the Christian religion.
THE EARL OF MINTOsupported the Amendment. He thought his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had done great service by raising this question. He considered that the Shorter Catechism, which was proposed to be allowed in schools, was a most unfortunate proposition. The Shorter Catechism seemed to him to be quite unfit and out of place in the hands of the children—not because it would have anything in the shape of an ill effect upon them, but that they could not understand it.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the speech his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had addressed to their Lordships in support of his proposition was, not so much a speech directed to his Amendment as an argument in favor of secular education. No doubt, much was to be said for and against secular education; but in his (the Duke of Argyll's) opinion much more against it. If the advocates of secular education could secure that children educated in entirely secular schools would have a religious education elsewhere in accordance with the belief of their parents, he should not object to purely secular education in the schools—if they could not secure that, he should refuse to sanction purely secular teaching. But if there was a compulsory separation of religious and secular education, we might be perfectly certain that a great proportion of the children would get no religious education whatever. Moreover, if a system of secular education were thoroughly carried out, and if the children received religious instruction in separate schools from their own clergy, the chances were that this religious instruction would be conceived in a more sectarian spirit than it was now. On the other hand, for the State to resolve upon religious education and dictate to the parents of children the particular form of instruction their chil-
1238
dren should receive, was a thing no Government could sanction, and which the people of Scotland would never submit to. Indeed, he took it that that House was not the place where these religious points should be decided. As to the objection that the Shorter Catechism was unfit for younger children, his contention was that their Lordships were not in a position to enter into that subject. He attached infinitely more value to the opinion of the Westminster Assembly which sat in the Jerusalem Chamber than he did to the opinion on that subject either of his noble Friend or of the majority of the House. As to the use of the word "Liberal" in this matter, he had longed for an opportunity to protest against it. There was a large number of persons in this country who said "you are not a Liberal" if you did not accept some of their crotchets. These persons prescribed all theology and all dogmatic teaching. He did not say that was the wish of his noble Friend, but he absolutely disclaimed the right of any party to dictate what was consistent or what was inconsistent with Liberal opinions. At all events, if the State undertook to provide religious education, it was the duty of the State to secure that the consciences of the minority should be respected; it had a right to say that it would give no money for religious instruction—and it had a right to secure that money granted by the State for educational purposes should be shared in by all; but it had no right to say either to individuals, associations, or Churches—"You may teach religion in the rate-supported schools, but not teach it according to the formulary you have drawn up." With regard to the Amendment of his noble Friend, he must remark that if ever we should come to such a condition of things, that it was impossible to give any religious instruction to children of different religious communions together, then he would be prepared to consider the alternative of purely secular education under such conditions and restrictions as Parliament might devise. But so long as we allowed religious instruction in our schools, he was absolutely averse from either the prescription or proscription of any religious instruction whatever.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that the noble Duke had taken him to task for expressing an opinion on the teaching

1239
of the Catechism; but he had simply quoted from the Report of the Commission of the noble Duke which sat in 1867; and, to put the case as strongly as possible in favor of the noble Duke, he had quoted the opinion of the ministers in defense of the Shorter Catechism. He had listened vainly throughout the discussion for any apology for the practice of compelling people to pay for the teaching of religious opinions with which they did not agree.
On Question, whether to insert? Resolved in the Negative.
Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 222.)

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE VICTORIA TOWER—SMOKE NUISANCE PREVENTION ACT.—QUESTION.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he desired to ask a Question with reference to a matter which might be supposed specially to concern himself and those in the house he had the honour to occupy; but when he found the evil of which he complained destroying the stone of the house in which he lived and injuring the owner's own property and the public property committed to his care, and destroying the bindings of the books of the valuable library of which he was the guardian, it was time to consider whether other people might not be equally injured. This nuisance was one which the Legislature had taken steps to correct, for it had entrusted Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State with the duty in the first instance of seeing that such nuisances were abated. Their Lordships were aware that Acts had been passed providing for the consumption of smoke, from the first of which potteries were exempted. By a subsequent Act that exemption had been taken away, so that potteries stood now under the same obligation as other furnaces from which smoke injurious to public health and public property might proceed. The Act which ordered that such matters should be inquired into laid the duty on the Home Secretary of putting in force in the first instance the provisions of the Smoke Nuisance Act. Accordingly, he had sent a memorial to the Secretary of State, and he received from him the answer that the memorial
1240
had been forwarded to the Local Government Board, and from the Local Government Board he received the further intimation that they had handed it to the Vestry of Lambeth. He had the greatest respect for his fellow-parishioners who composed that Vestry, and he had no doubt they were anxious to do their duty; but he thought they were not anxious to do the duty of the Secretary of State. Moreover, he thought the expense of putting down this nuisance could hardly with fairness be charged upon the ratepayers of Lambeth, for the injury done was not confined to the parish, but must extend to the whole surrounding neighborhood. The stone in the buildings on the south side of the Thames, especially in the house which he occupied, was suffering from exactly the same sort of decay as that which was going on in the walls of the Houses of Parliament. Dr. Christison said that muriatic acid which was poured forth from these potteries produced the most serious effects. The muriatic acid was elaborated by pouring on the pottery work when it was red-hot a certain amount of common salt, and the gas thus evolved poisoned the whole atmosphere around. The muriatic acid gas acting on any stone which contained lime immediately decomposed the stone, and any ornamental work like that which abounded in the Houses of Parliament crumbled away. A very small quantity, according to Dr. Christison, was fatal to animal and vegetable life, and anyone might see that the trees which had been planted on the other side of the river were dying under its influence, and he could not but doubt that it would be found that the death rate in some parts of the parish of Lambeth was raised by the pouring out of muriatic acid from these potteries. Therefore, he wished to know, Whether as the Secretary of State had been memorialized on the subject, any steps have been taken to protect the Victoria Tower from the effects of the smoke charged with muriatic acid which is continually poured forth from the low chimneys of the potteries in Lambeth, such effects being equally deleterious to buildings in the neighborhood and to the health of the dense population living near the works?
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSsaid, the decay of stone in the Houses of Parliament had been for some time under con-

1241
sideration. The Government, however, had no information or evidence to show that the decay had arisen from the presence of muriatic acid in the air. Several experiments had been made, and eight were now under course of trial on the stone of the terrace, which was the same as that employed in the Victoria Tower. None had as yet proved that any external application would prevent the decay of the stone. A sum of money had been inserted in the Estimates for this year, and would be continued annually, for the repair of the decayed stone. The Office of Works had no power to interfere with the nuisance of the Lambeth potteries.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought the Smoke Nuisance Prevention Act made it imperative on the Secretary of State to put down the nuisance.
THE EARL OF MORLEYstated that further inquiry was going on as to this subject, and if the most rev. Primate would repeat his Question on a future occasion he should be happy to answer him.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 217.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1a (No. 218.)
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.