Lords Sitting of 8 May 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation* (95); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (96); Fairs* (97); Vagrants Law Amendment* (98); Marriages Legalization, St. John's Chapel, Eton* (99).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee Canonries (83).
Committee—Registration of Births and Deaths (49–100).
Committee—Referred to Select Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) (68).
Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (69); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (78); Land Drainage Provisional Order* (70).
Third Reading—East India Stock Dividend Redemption* (67); Fulford Chapel Marriages Legalization* (82), and passed.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL—(Nos. 49–100.)
(The Earl of Morley.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERwho had given Notice of a series of Amendments, explained that his object was to render the provisions of the Bill less onerous on the poorer classes of the population without imparing its general efficiency. He believed the Bill as it stood provided for a needless multiplicity of informants in the cases of births and

1667
deaths. There was no principle better ascertained than that the division of responsibility weakened the feeling of individual obligation; and having regard to the trouble to which poor people would be put in complying with the provisions of the measure, he believed it would be wise to modify some of the clauses. The right rev. Prelate then moved the omission of words in the first clause, restricting the obligation of giving information of the birth of any child to the father or mother, or the person having charge of the child; and inserting in Clause 10 words limiting the number of persons bound to give information concerning a death.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the object of the Bill being to secure a complete registration of births, for which the law did not at present provide, and to bring into a consistent system the indirect and imperfect method in which deaths were at present registered, every person had been included who it was at all probable would be competent to give information. The right rev. Prelate should observe that the obligation was placed upon strangers only in default of the parents or near relatives. He could not approve of the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not think the obligations imposed by the Bill were so onerous as the right rev. Prelate seemed to believe, and were not at all more so than was necessary to secure efficient registration.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Friday the 16th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL—(No. 68).
(The Lord President.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had an Amendment to move which, though it might appear a small matter in itself, really involved an important principle. When Parliament passed the Elementary Education Bill three years ago, a compromise was adopted between the two kinds of education—that termed denominational and that carried on under
1668
the School Boards. Now it was absolutely necessary if that compromise was to continue and to be fairly carried out that the School Board should keep their hands off the denominational schools. If the School Board, with unlimited means supplied out of the pockets of the ratepayers, were allowed to shut up the denominational schools, it was obvious that the compromise was at an end. Now, he wished to bring before their Lordships a case in which this compromise had, he considered, been flagrantly disregarded by the London School Board. The present Bill was the necessary consequence of a provision in the Elementary Education Act, inasmuch as the School Board proposed a compulsory taking of land in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, for the purposes of a Board school. It was proposed to build this school in a district where there was already sufficient provision for education, and on a spot around which at a radius of 500 yards there were eight denominational schools. The district within which these schools stood was on the south side of the river running from Vauxhall to Lambeth Palace, and embraced the parishes of St. Peter, Vauxhall, and St. Mary, Lambeth. The population was 19,086 persons. The utmost calculation of the Education Department was that there should be school accommodation for one out of every six of the population. Accordingly, on that calculation, the district to which he was referring required school accommodation for 3,140 children; but at the present time there was school accommodation for 3,298, being in excess of what was required, and though schooling was to be had in those parishes for a penny a week, there were 800 vacancies. The existing schools belonged to different denominations, and he thought the result of such proceedings as these would be to discourage the efforts of individuals for the education of the young, and would put an end to the foundation of denominational schools. He believed it would be urged in favour of what was asked for in this Bill, that though school accommodation was not required within the limits of which the Board school was the centre, it was required for an adjoining district; and as it was difficult to get sites for schools in London, the Education Department thought it was desirable to secure this piece of

1669
ground in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth. As he had already explained, there was a piece of ground with numerous denominational schools on each side of it. Now if a person got possession of a tongue of land with coverts on either side of it, and if he put food for pheasants on that tongue of land and said he had obtained the land merely for the pheasants on his own estate, people would still have a suspicion that his object was to draw the pheasants from the woods on either side. He hoped he would not be misunderstood as seeking to cast any reflection on the distinguished President of the London School Board, whose whole life showed his devotion to religious education; but, as was shown by the case at Nottingham, School Boards sometimes acted very recklessly, and if the compromise entered into three years ago was to be upheld, a proposal such as that before their Lordships ought not to be adopted. Moreover, the School Boards did not now represent the ratepayers. They were near the end of their term, and the ratepayers were beginning to awaken to the fact that they were exercising their powers in a very reckless manner. Be that as it might, here was a very flagrant wrong proposed, and their Lordships might well interpose and prevent the adoption of this scheme until a new election had taken place. His proposal was to omit from the Schedule the words giving power for the compulsory taking of the land on which to erect the new school.
Amendment moved, in pages 11 and 12, to leave out the words—
"A piece or parcel of ground situate in or near Albion Cottages, in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, being on the east and west sides of Albion Cottages, and containing 18,510 square feet, or thereabouts, together with all the messuages, tenements, and buildings now standing thereon."
[Then the names of the owners and occupiers are set out.]
LORD LAWRENCEsaid, he would address their Lordships, not as the Chairman of the School Board, but as a Member of their Lordships' House, and would intreat their Lordships not to accede to the proposal of the noble Marquess. The truth was that the question was not a denominational one or a religious one, but one of meeting what the School Board knew to be a real deficiency in respect of education on the
1670
south side of London. When the question of dividing London into areas for School Board purposes was under consideration it was determined that it would be inconvenient to adopt the existing parochial divisions; and therefore London was mapped out into 10 large divisions, which were again sub-divided. The noble Lord, holding in his hand a map, explained the "blocks" into which the south side of London had been divided, applying the Returns of school accommodation and deficiency to the several "blocks," referring particularly to two "blocks," which embraced the localities and schools alluded to. The noble Lord proceeded to say that it was sometimes found more convenient to deal with two blocks as one large one, rather than to have two small schools; and it was therefore resolved to erect one large school for the two blocks in question. There were in the neighbourhood nearly 4,000 children; the existing school accommodation was sufficient for 2,732, leaving between 1,100 and 1,200 children to be provided for by Board schools. It was therefore at first determined to build a school sufficient for 1,000 children; but upon further scrutiny the plan had been altered, and it was now proposed to provide for the present for only 500, leaving a deficiency of 500 places. He thought this was a question which must be left to the Board, who had no object in supplying school accommodation which was not really required. When a few years had passed he was confident it would appear that the Board had been by no means extravagant in expending the ratepayers' money. They were erecting schools only in cases which had been clearly made out, and not in cases which were doubtful. He could understand and sympathize with the feelings of the supporters of voluntary schools; but it must be remembered that the Board was created for the very purpose of supplying deficiencies. In cases in which the supporters of voluntary schools felt themselves aggrieved they had often appealed to the Board and had had interviews with committees; but, in this case, instead of adopting that course, the gentlemen went to the Education Department, which referred them to the Board, who gave their reasons for what they had done. Had these gentlemen gone to the Board at first, they might, perhaps, have adduced arguments which

1671
would have induced the Board to modify its plans; but they had done nothing of the kind, and there was no course open to the Board but to do what it had done. As for postponing the question until after the next election of School Boards, he did not see any reason for it. If it was good in this it was good in every other case; and their Lordships must remember that the Board had hitherto been chidden, not for doing too much, but for having done so little.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, so far as he understood, the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) appeared to admit that the want of school accommodation was not in that part of the district where it was proposed to erect the schools, which were to be built in the centre of a district well supplied, and for which more had been done during the last 20 years than for many other districts in the metropolis. There was already accommodation for near 3,000 children and in the interest of the ratepayers they ought to resist an expenditure of some £15,000 or £20,000 for a school that was not wanted, The noble Lord said the London School Board had not wasted the means of the ratepayers. He would not suggest that they had done so, but if they did what they now proposed to do they would, in his opinion, be wasting the means of the ratepayers. Now, as the School Board must be re-elected in November next, he thought this matter might well wait till the election was held, when the ratepayers would be enabled to give their opinion as to the scheme by re-electing those members who would carry out their views, and if they were of opinion that this £15,000 or £20,000 ought not to be spent, they would be able to prevent it.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that the question their Lordships really had to determine was one of fact. He thought the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had misunderstood what had been stated by his noble Friend the Chairman of the London School Board. It was proposed to erect a school in the centre of block 89, where there was, as stated by his noble Friend, a deficiency of accommodation for 1,000 or 1,100 children; but the school proposed to be erected was only to supply accommodation for 500 children. The London School Board came into operation under exceptional circumstances—it was the only School
1672
Board which came into operation entirely by authority of Parliament, and the Act of 1870 threw on the School Board the duty of at once supplying the deficiency of accommodation that might be found to exist for the education of children in the metropolis. The gentlemen who had made the inquiries and inspected the particular district had assured the Department that the figures were as had been stated by his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence). He, therefore, believed there was some mistake in the figures of the noble Marquess. The London School Board had very carefully investigated the matter, and he hoped their Lordships would not take for granted that the unauthenticated statistics of the noble Marquess were correct.
LORD DE ROSsaid, he knew the district well, and did not believe the school proposed was necessary for the extent of the population. He should support the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought the question should be referred to a Select Committee, which would be enabled in a very few minutes to come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory to all parties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think it would be wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee on this single point. If the Bill were referred to them at all it would be necessary to refer it in its entirety, and that would oblige the London School Board to prove each case before the Committee, which would be a rather large undertaking. Besides, this was not a permanent, but only a suspensory decision. The ratepayers were the best Select Committee to refer the matter to.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was rather surprised that the noble Marquess should shrink from any inquiry into the facts—he ought to have fully ascertained the accuracy of his facts before bringing on his Motion. He (Earl Granville) would take the responsibility of the figures of the London School Board. They had been looked into by men of different opinions, and there was hardly any difference among them in relation to this matter.
LORD LAWRENCEsaid, he was not aware of any difference of opinion in the Board on the subject.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there could be no doubt the Board was justified in finding school accommodation where a deficiency existed. The noble Marquess had only ascertained one portion of the facts; on that portion of the facts he had made a statement to the House, and many noble Lords had come down to support him. But his noble Friend had proposed the fairest thing possible—to refer it to an impartial Committee of five to report merely as to the facts in question. If that proposal were rejected the conduct of the House would not recommend itself to the public mind.
EARL GREYsaid, he did not think it necessary to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee—it would be sufficient to suspend the proceedings on the Bill, and in the meantime to appoint a Committee merely to consider this one point—whether a proper site was chosen for this school or not. On the one hand, his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) proved that there was a deficiency, and that there ought to be a new school; but he also stated that the proposed site was in the centre of two blocks, in which, taken together, there was a deficiency. If he understood the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) correctly, he admitted that there was a deficiency in the two blocks taken together, but contended that in one of the blocks there was none. If the noble Marquess was right in that contention, it would not be satisfactory to place the new school in the centre of the two blocks taken together, but rather in the centre of the block which was deficient in school accommodation. There was so much doubt as to whether the site was properly selected that it would be impossible for the House to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the point, therefore he hoped the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) would be adopted, and that these small points would be referred to a Select Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he preferred that the Bill as it stood should be referred to a Select Committee, which he trusted would not be a large one.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONalso recommended that the whole Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The proposed site was not the only thing to which objection was taken. The ma-
1674
nagers of the existing schools and the ratepayers of the adjoining districts considered that the prosperity of those schools was endangered by the Bill.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he did not think it would be in Order to refer particular points only and not the whole Bill to a Select Committee. In his opinion, it would be a fair consideration for Parliament whether, unless there was a general consent, Bills affecting the property of the metropolis, ought to be accepted as a matter of course, and ought not rather to go through the ordeal of a Select Committee in the same way as all Private Bills were examined.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, it would involve a very unnecessary delay to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee. Their Lordships might have the utmost reliance on the energy and sagacity of the noble Marquess to find out all the weak points of the case.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had heard a great deal from noble Lords opposite as to the necessity of inquiring into the accuracy of the statements made in reference to this question. The accuracy of the statements made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) had been impugned, and the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) said, that the question of site was not the only point to which objection was taken. It was only fair to the right rev. Prelate that an opportunity should be afforded him of verifying that statement. The Bill had come up from the House of Commons, and if there was no objection to the various Schedules no time would be lost in considering them, because they would not be considered at all. But it was due to those who had any objection to any of these Schedules to have as full an opportunity of stating their case as the noble Marquess. He hoped, therefore, that the whole Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
House resumed; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.
And, on Tuesday, May 13, the Lords following were named of the Committee;—

D. Cleveland,

L. Bp. Winchester.

E. Harrowby.

L. Kesteven.

E. Beauchamp.

L. Lawrence.

V. Eversley.

CANONRIES BILL—(No. 83.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that the object of the Bill was to amend the Act of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, for the Regulation of Cathedrals, and to facilitate endowment of Canonries by private benefaction. By the 20th section of the Act referred to it was provided that a plan might be laid before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for re-establishing any canonries which should be suspended under the Act by assigning towards the re-endowment of any such revived canonry a portion of the capitular revenues, not exceeding £200 per annum. The present Bill proposed that any plan for reviving a canonry need not necessarily propose to appropriate any portion of the capitular revenue; and authorized the revival of old canonries and the establishment of new ones from private endowment. The Bill contained some provisions assigning the duties, fixing residences, &c., for the new canons, and regulating their position in the Chapters of the cathedrals and collegiate churches.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
And, on Friday, June 13, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

Abp. Canterbury.

E. Ducie.

M. Salisbury.

V. Portman.

E. Carnarvon.

Bp. Winchester.

E. Powis.

Bp. Lichfield.

E. Nelson.

L. Blachford.

MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION, ST. JOHN'S CHAPEL, ETON, BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to render valid marriages heretofore solemnized in the Chapel of Ease called "Saint John-the-Evangelist" Chapel, Eton, in the parish of Eton, in the county of Buckingham—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of OXFORD; read 1a. (No. 99.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.