Lords Sitting of 4 June 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Aberdare, &c.) * (123), and referred to the Examiners; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (130), and referred to the Examiners.
Second Reading—Parliament of Canada * (96); Justices (Dublin) * (118).
Committee—Bankruptcy (Scotland) Law Amendment* (62–133).
Report—Church Patronage (122–131);Chimney Sweepers * (71); Falsification of Accounts* (125).

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1871—COMPULSORY EDUCATION—CASE OF ELIZABETH MARKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRrose to ask, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the case of Elizabeth Marks, as appeared in the police report at Guildhall of Saturday the 1st of May, with special reference to the power of School Boards to enforce the attendance of children at school? The noble Earl said, he regarded the case as one of some importance, not only as one of apparent hardship to the person referred to, on whom the operation of the Education Acts fell with some severity, but also as an illustration of the present working of the law relative to compulsory education. The particulars of the case in question had appeared in the public Press, and had been the subject of comment. The point to which he wished first to draw attention was this—the operation of the law in cases of persons in the receipt of parish relief. He did not desire to make any complaint against the officers who administered the law in this particular instance, or in any other similar ones which had taken place as he believed they acted in the manner which they considered to be in accordance with the intentions of the law; but he did wish to know from Her Majesty's Government whether, in future, cases of this kind were to be dealt with in the same manner, and whether there was not some discretionary power in the Educational Departments of the Government of modifying the action of the law where exceptions ought clearly to be made. So far as he could learn, neither
  1390
  the Local Government Board nor the Education Department of the Privy Council had authorized any deviation from what was usually considered to be the meaning of the Act; and it might be, he admitted, doubtful whether they had the power of doing so. In a Circular of the Local Government Board, dated the 30th of December, 1873, the following occurs:—
  "The statute prevents the Guardians from granting any "continuous out-door relief when the child is not placed at a school where such education (i.e., elementary education) can be obtained and is not within one of the exceptions; those exceptions being:—1. That the child is under efficient instruction in some other manner; 2. That the child has been prevented from attending school by sickness or any unavoidable cause; 3. That there is no other public elementary school which the child can attend."
  It was clear that these exceptions would not apply to the case in question. This Circular was confirmed by another dated the 30th of March, 1874. A Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated the 18th of March, 1874, was also to the same effect. It seemed that the interpretation of the law by Her Majesty's Government was, that no out-door relief under any circumstances could be given to any person unless the children between the ages of 5 and 13 were attending school; and it was further to be observed that the Guardians in such cases had the power only of giving such additional relief as might be required for paying the school fees. The words of the Circular to which he had referred were—
  "It shall be a condition for the continuance of such relief that elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic shall be provided for such child, and the Guardians shall give such further relief, if any, as may be necessary for such purpose."
  He could not but think that the operation of this law as thus interpreted and acted upon fell very heavily upon a class, whose adverse circumstances rendered them little able to cope with difficulties. The circumstances of the case of Elizabeth Marks were so well known, and had been so much the subject of comment by the public Press, that it was not necessary he should go into it; he might, however, refer to one other instance in illustration of what he had stated. In The Times of the 7th of May last a case was noticed of a poor woman wishing to keep her child of 11 years of age at

  1391
  home during her confinement. It was referred to the Local Government Board. The reply was—
  "The sickness of the parent did not appear to them to be a reasonable excuse within the meaning of the Act for the non-attendance of the child at school."
  Surely it could not have been intended that the Act should operate in that way? Could the greatest enthusiast on the subject of education wish that the child of a sick parent should be forced from her during her illness lest the child should lose some little advantage in learning reading, or writing, or arithmetic? And he would urge that there was a social and domestic education which was not to be lost sight of, and there were duties of children to their parents, the practice of which formed an important element of education. He ventured to think there was more real education in a child staying at home sometimes to assist its parents or in earning something for them than in going to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, or it might be to answer the questions of a School Inspector in geography. He had said this much with reference to the compulsory education of children whose parents were in the receipt of parish relief; but the compulsory Education Acts not only applied to that class, but had a general bearing upon those also who were independent and earning their own living. It might, perhaps, not be out of place to refer for a moment to the history of the introduction of the principle of compulsory education into legislation. It was true the principle of compulsory education was to some extent recognized by the Hours of Labour Act and by the Factory Acts; but he believed he was right in saying that, previous to the year 1870, no general law existed by which education was made compulsory. In the year 1870 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Forster, then Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, giving compulsory powers to school boards. It passed through the House of Commons after lengthy debates, and more rapidly through their Lordships' House at the end of the Session. Let him ask their Lordships' attention for a few moments to some of the provisions of this Act. A school board elected by the ratepayers has the power of making by-laws which,
  1392
  after receiving the sanction of the Education Department, renders it compulsory upon the parents of children between the ages of 5 and 13 to cause them to attend school unless there was some reasonable excuse on account of sickness or other unavoidable cause. It could readily be seen that such a power as that might press heavily upon the labouring class who were earning their living with independence, but often, in the case of a large family, not without the assistance of their children. It was true that some hours of labour were allowed in the week—in some cases determined by age; but it might not unfrequently happen that the employer could not make use of labour in that restricted form, and in the case of a large family the loss of the earnings of the elder children might bring a family almost to absolute poverty. But not content with the power conferred by the Act of 1870, the promoters of compulsory education carried their scheme yet further, by passing, in 1873, the Agricultural Children Act, restricting in an especial manner the work of agricultural children and subjecting the employers to penalties if children under 8 years were employed in any agricultural work, and requiring a certain number of school attendances after that age. He believed, however, that Act had been in a great measure inoperative, and that it would become more so from the great inconvenience, and almost impossibility, of enforcing it; but the objectionable principle remained, and cases might occur where it would be enforced. It might be that a wise discretion had in many instances been exercised; but he could not but view with some alarm the introduction of the principle of rigid compulsory education into legislation, directed against a class who had nothing but their labour to depend upon for a subsistence. It seemed to be inconsistent with the independence which they desired to see among the poorer as well as the richer class, and that the State had assumed to itself a more paternal authority than it had a right to claim and was more or less putting itself into the place of a parent. It might be the duty of the State to provide the means of education and to see that that education was good, and where it was so he believed education would always be made use of; if there was a good school, the school would be full.

  1393
  There might be exceptions, and it was always difficult to legislate for exceptions; but when the State stepped in and prevented a child from exercising the natural duty of assisting its parents even in sickness, it seemed to him to partake more of the spirit of the severe laws of the Spartan Constitution, where the citizen existed only for the State, than of the free institutions of this country. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would be able to say that some discretionary powers would be exercised in enforcing the Acts relative to compulsory education.
  LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEYsaid, the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) had rendered a service by calling the attention of the House to the conduct of the London School Board, and the attention of the House to these matters would be most beneficial as a check upon school boards, as a guide to the magistrates who had to decide these cases, and as a support to the Education Office, which required support in its efforts to supervise the school boards. The Education Office required support, for the tone and tendency of school boards, as was shown by the Birmingham League monthly paper and The School Board Chronicle, was one of rebellion against the Education Office, and to set themselves up as independent and rival powers, or as equal in authority to the Education Office. The case of Elizabeth Marks was not an isolated one—there were many others that did not get into the newspapers. He would give their Lordships an instance that had come within his knowledge. A labourer receiving 20 s. a-week, with a wife and eight children, was summoned by the school board because his wife, who was near her confinement, had asked for a week's leave for her boy of 11 years old to attend on her and her infant children; and as she kept him at home for an additional week the father was summoned to the Hammersmith Police Court, and fined 7s. 6d., and he had to lose a second days work a fortnight later by having to report to the magistrate that his child had attended school regularly during that interval. There was in the correspondence published by the League paper of February, 1875, a complaint of an adver-tizement requiring a board schoolmaster to play the organ for £25, to be paid from a separate fund. The Education
  1394
  Office declined to object. Evidently this £25 from separate funds would relieve the ratepayers of that much salary. The Education Office should check this extravagance, for the Wolverhampton school board were paying their master and mistress at the rate, for 200 children average attendance, of £264 and £196 respectively, while according to the scale of the London School Board their salaries would be £226 and £152.
  THE DUKE OP RICHMONDthanked the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Stanley of Alderley) for his anxiety that the Education Office should receive additional support; but he could assure the noble Lord that the Committee of Council on Education believed itself to be perfectly competent to manage the affairs entrusted to it without any assistance from without. He must confess that the noble Lord had the advantage of him in one respect, for the Birmingham League monthly paper or The School, Board Chronicle were journals he never had the felicity to see. He hoped the noble Earl who had brought forward the question (Earl De La Warr) would not expect him to follow him in going back to the legislation of 1870 and 1873 in respect of Elementary Education. His noble Friend asked, in the first place, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the case of Elizabeth Marks—but, at the same time, his noble Friend seemed to assume that it had been. Such was the fact; and in the other House of Parliament his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council had given an answer to which he (the Duke of Eichmond) had nothing to add, when an inquiry as to the case was made in that House. That answer was, that so far as had come to the knowledge of the Department—and he believed all the facts had reached the Office—Mrs. Marks had not been treated in a harsh manner; that, on the contrary, the visiting officer of the London School Board seemed to have acted towards her in the most considerate manner; and the case, as presented to the Government, did not appear to call for any interference on the part of the Education Department. His noble Friend said he had no complaint to make in the case of Mrs. Marks, but he wanted to know whether in future other cases would be treated in a similar manner. In reply to that inquiry, he

  1395
  could only say that each case must be decided on its own merits. It was impossible, therefore, to give a general undertaking in reference to such a matter. Each case might, perhaps, differ from the preceding one; and consequently, before the particular case came to be considered, and the bearing of the law upon it interpreted, it would be impossible to say what ought to be done in respect of it. This, however, he could say—that all cases in which grievances, or alleged grievances, were brought before the Department would be considered with that degree of attention which such cases ought to receive.

SANITARY OFFICERS (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS. MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDrose to call the attention of the House to the appointment of the salaries of certain sanitary officers in Ireland by sealed orders of the Local Government Board (Ireland,) and to move for a Return of the names of Boards of Guardians of the Poor in Ireland who have objected to such appointments. It seemed to him that under existing Acts of Parliament the powers given to the Local Government Board in Ireland were almost despotic, and those powers were occasionally exercised in a very arbitrary manner as against Boards of Guardians. No doubt some of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland proposed to fix the salaries of the newly appointed sanitary officers, in the first instance, at a very small sum. This they did because the duties were certainly very light, and because the Boards wished, before committing themselves to larger salaries, to have practical experience of the duties which those officers would have to perform. The Local Government Board, which could not have the same knowledge of the state of facts as was possessed by Guardians living in the particular locality, had interfered by sealed orders to compel the Unions to pay the salaries which it thought ought to be paid. A Board of Guardians of which he was a member had been slighted and insulted in that way.
  Moved that there be laid before this House, Return of the names of Boards of Guardians of the Poor in Ireland who have objected to the appointment of sanitary officers in Ireland by sealed orders of the Local Government Board.—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  LORD LURGANsaid, that before the question was disposed of he would like to say one or two words. He need not assure the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford) that if it were in his power to give his Motion any assistance he would gladly do so; and therefore he trusted that he would bear with him when he said that having listened as attentively as he could to what the noble Viscount called his grievance he considered that it was not proved. He would speak of the Boards of Guardians with which he was connected. The Sanitary Act came into operation last October, and the Boards of Guardians were required to carry it into effect. There was an indisposition on the part of his Board to pay the officers employed what was considered to be a sufficient remuneration. The Board fixed a low scale and the Local Government Board in Dublin fixed a high scale, and they came to an arrangement which must be felt to be most satisfactory. Since October, 300 notices had been served and the far greater part had been satisfactorily arranged without any legal proceeding; and therefore he thought it was unwise and unfair to blame the Local Government Board in Dublin for being arbitrary and unjust. He would not detain their Lordships further, but he thought he should not be doing his duty if he had not stated this much. The Local Government Board exercised a certain control over the Boards of Guardians, and in Ireland all Boards required that there should be a certain amount of authority over them.
  THE EARL OF DARTREYsaid, that this matter had caused much irritation in Ireland, and great dissatisfaction and discontent prevailed amongst the Boards of Guardians—therefore, he felt much obliged to his noble Friend (Viscount Lifford) for bringing the subject before their Lordships.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he thought the noble Earl (the Earl of Dartrey) could hardly be acquainted with the operation of the Act all over Ireland; and as to the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Lurgan), who desired some check to be placed over the Boards in Ireland, those remarks might be applied to England as well as to Ireland. As to the noble Viscount's speech, he (the Duke of Richmond) must enter his solemn protest against the statement that the Local Government Board in

  1397
  Dublin had slighted and insulted the Boards of Guardians in Ireland. That statement was not borne out by the evidence in the case, and he contended that neither slight nor insult had been passed upon the Board of Guardians of which the noble Viscount was chairman; and further, he would state that neither had been passed upon the Boards of Guardians of that country. The noble Viscount, feeling that he had not a strong case, had almost given it up before he concluded his observations. It appeared that there were in Ireland 205 urban and rural sanitary authorities, and out of that number it had only been found necessary to put the compulsory powers into operation in 32 cases. As regarded the Board of Guardians referred to, the Local Government Board had remonstrated with them upon two occasions, and had told them that if they did not revise the scale of salaries it would become necessary to issue a sealed order; and therefore, upon the facts, he considered that the noble Viscount was not correct in the view which he had taken of the case. He did not think, as the Government proposed to give the noble Viscount the Return which he asked for, he would be justified in saying more at present.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD, in reply, was understood to contend that upon the evidence before the House the Board of Guardians over which he presided had been slighted and insulted by the Local Government Board in Dublin.
  Motion agreed to.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.

  (NOS. 122–131). REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he thought it was very doubtful, from the debate which took place the other evening, whether this Bill would, if passed, be advantageous to, or in the interest of, the Church. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) had told their Lordships that this Bill had not been brought forward in any spirit of opposition to the laity or lay patronage in the Church of England; but he (Lord Houghton) feared, looking at the memorable division which took place on
  1398
  Tuesday evening, that this Bill would, if further pressed upon the House, cause a wider breach than now existed between the clergy and the laity. Certainly, he did not think that the spectacle of the two most rev. Prelates, with almost all the Episcopal Bench, and one or two lay Lords voting in favour of a particular clause, and the lay Lords voting against it and rejecting it, would be considered beneficial to the Church. He believed that it was the opinion that this Bill was not called for in the interests of the Church, and it would have a tendency to depreciate the value of property; while it proceeded on the hypothesis that the laity who were patrons of the Church, and others who were interested in its affairs, were likely to abuse their power. At the present moment the protection of the Church from any improper person being introduced into it was perfectly adequate to the prevention of abuse, and it was extremely rare that anything like a scandal had ever taken place under the present system of patronage. There was one point on which the right rev. Prelate who had charge of the Bill (the Bishop of Peterborough) had shown not only that delightful humour of which he was such a master, but an amount of good sense which he (Lord Houghton) was sure must have had its effect on every Member of that House, whatever his opinions might be—and that was with reference to the question of donatives. The argument of the right rev. Prelate showed distinctly that that very peculiar mode of appointing incumbents required amendment. He (Lord Houghton) was sure that if this Bill were withdrawn, and a short Bill introduced for the purpose of altering this mode of nominating presentees to donatives without episcopal jurisdiction, such a measure would meet with no opposition in either House of Parliament. Another point had reference to the abolition of what were called "resignation bonds," as to which his (Lord Houghton's) feeling went on social grounds rather than that they were an injury to property. He thought that, looking at the matter from a social point of view, the abolition of these bonds would have a tendency to increase the severance that was daily taking place in the Church between the clergy and the laity—a result which he was sure would be injurious to both. But the matter was

  1399
  also arguable upon grounds connected with the question of property, and he had in his hand a letter he had received from a clergyman, in which the writer said if the Bill passed some compensation ought to be given to those who would be deprived of their property. "As it is," said the clergyman, "it will take from me as patron of my living the right to reserve the appointment for either of my three sons, and I estimate the loss at at least £1,000." This was not, he believed, at all a singular case, but one of a large number that might be adduced. Under these circumstances, he begged to ask the right rev. Prelate whether he did not think it was desirable to postpone any further proceedings on this Bill, the success of which in the other House he very much doubted, even should it pass their Lordships' House, and he had no doubt that the discussions in the other House would provoke a very strong and injurious Party feeling that would not be at all favourable to the Church.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHcould not assent to the singular and unprecedented request of the noble Lord, that he should withdraw the Bill at its present stage. Their Lordships would doubtless remember the history of this measure. He, in the first place, moved their Lordships for the appointment of a Committee to inquire whether there were any grounds for bringing in such a measure; and in the result a large and an influential Committee of Members of their Lordships' House was appointed, on which certainly the interests of property, of patrons, and of the laity were not inadequately represented. The unanimous Report of that Committee was to the effect that the law upon the subject was in urgent need of revision. The Report was founded largely upon the evidence of laymen, intelligent solicitors, and men of business who were totally unconnected with the Church. Having introduced this measure, their Lordships had sanctioned its principle by reading it a second time; and they had then referred it to a Select Committee, which consisted mainly of lay Peers, including some eminent legal authorities, such as the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, and of only three Bishops. The measure which was now before them was the result of the labours of that Committee. That was the Committee, so constituted, which
  1400
  the noble Lord supposed had acted regardless of the feelings of the laity, and had supported a Bill which would be injurious to the rights of property and to the Church. When their Lordships were about to go into Committee upon the Bill the noble Lord delivered a speech against the measure; but, nevertheless, the Bill passed through Committee; and now when the Bill had passed through all these stages the noble Lord suggested that he should withdraw the measure altogether. After the principle of the Bill had received the approval of so many Members of their Lordships' House, it was impossible that he could comply with the noble Lord's request. He confessed that he foresaw none of the evils which the noble Lord prophesied would flow from this measure, and he believed the Establishment of the Church of England would survive many measures of reform as mild and necessary as this, while he was afraid it would not survive many such speeches as that of the noble Lord.
  Further Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD'S PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERDARE, &C.) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Districts of Aberdare, the City and Borough of Bath, the Districts of Bedlingtonshire, the Buntingford Union, the Cookermouth Union, and Cowpen, the Borough of Denbigh, the District of Hucknall Torkard, of the Port Sani-tory Authority of Liverpool, and the Districts of Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn, Penarth, Teignmouth, West Ham, Windhill (two), and Worthing—Was presented by The LORD PRE-SIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 123.)

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for confirming a Provisional Order made under the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862, relating to the Burgh of Paisley in the County of Renfrew—Was presented by The LORD STEWARD; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 130.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.