Lords Sitting of 9 July 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Earldom of Mar, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Inclosure* (127).
Report—New Forest* (129).
Committee—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards)* (131.)
Third Reading—Prisons* (116); Reservoirs* (103), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR SCOTLAND —EARLDOM OF MAR.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE DUKE OF BUCOLEUCHrose to move a Resolution designating the place and precedence in which the title of Mar be called at all future elections of the Representative Peers for Scotland. The noble Duke said, he would not enter into the controversy that had been raised by the rival claimants to the ancient Earldom of Mar—he would merely remind their Lordships that at the death of the last Earl of Mar, 32 years ago, two claimants appeared to the title, the Earl of Kellie, and Mr. Goodeve Erskine. They claimed their right to the Earldom on different grounds and under different circumstances; but he would not detain their Lordships by going into details— suffice it to say that the claims of the two parties were heard by their Lordships' House, that the hearing occupied counsel on both sides were heard at the Bar, and he believed that upwards of 500 documents, charters, and writs were produced. It was decided by the Committee of Privileges, and afterwards adjudged by that House, that the Earl of Kellie had made good his claim to the Earldom of Mar, created by Queen Mary in 1565, and that Mr. Goodeve Erskine not had made good his opposition to that claim. What was usual in that House when a Scotch Peerage was decided was done on that occasion. An order was immediately given to the Lord Clerk Register in Scotland to insert in the Roll of Peers of Scotland called for at the elections of Representative Peers, that Peerage at its proper place and precedence. He had a list of the cases in which this had been done on previous occasion; but he would not trouble their
  948
  Lordships with the several cases, but would refer to some Peerages which appeared in the Union Roll. Before doing that, however, he would state that great misconception prevailed as to what that Roll was. It was not embodied in the Act of Union, neither was it to be found in the Treaty of Union, but it was a copy of the Great Roll that used to be called in the Parliament of Scotland. In May of 1707, when the Act of Union was passed, an Order was sent from this House to the Lord Clerk Register to send up an authentic list of the Peerage of Scotland as it then stood. In 1708 a List was according sent up to this House, and a Committee was appointed to consider it. The Committee reported upon it, and it was accepted as an authentic list of the Peerage as it then stood. The Peers were entered upon the Roll according to precedence given to them by the Decreet of Ranking of 1606; but this was not final. It was styled an interim Decreet, and it was open to any Peer who felt himself aggrieved by being put too low or not in his proper place, to apply for the rectification of the Decreet of Ranking. This was done in the case of the Earl of Buchan, who applied to the Court of Session to produce the Decreet of Ranking, because he alleged that he had been put below certain Peers, and it was decided in his favour. That decision was confirmed, ratified, and approved by an Act passed through the Scotch Parliament in 1633. He mentioned that as an instance in which the Decreet of Ranking was not final. Several Peerages had been added to the Roll since, among which were Lord Braemar in 1703, Lord Colville of Culross and Somerville in 1823, the Marquess of Queensberry in 1812, Lord Morton in 1835, the Marquess of Huntly in 1838, Lord Hemes in 1858, and Lord Kinross in 1868. He need not mention other Peerages which had rather been restored to the Roll than entered upon it. The noble Duke concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Moved to resolve,
  That upon tearing the petition of the Earl of Mar and Kellie this House doth order that at all future meetings of the Peers of Scotland assembled under any Royal Proclamation for the election of a Peer or Peers to represent the Peers of Scotland, the Lord Clerk Register, or the Clerks of Session officiating in his name, do call

  949
  the title of Mar in the Roll of Peers of Scotland in Parliament called at such elections in the place and precedence to which it has been declared by the resolution and judgment of this House on 26th February 1875 to be entitled according to the date of the creation of that Earldom, and in no other place, with a saving nevertheless as well to the said Earl of Mar and Kellie as to all other Peers of Scotland, their rights and places upon further and better authority showed for the same.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYrose to move the Previous Question, saying that he regretted that on the subject of a Scottish Peerage there should be any difference of opinion in their Lordships' House. The noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) had entered into the region of history, and traced that of Scotch Peerages from 1606 down to 1875; but he (the Marquess of Huntly) ventured to move the Previous Question on the ground that such a Resolution as that which the noble Duke had concluded by moving, was ultra vires of their Lordships' jurisdiction. He further took the preliminary objection that this Petition was not, as was the ordinary course, a Petition to the Crown. The usual and proper course was for the claimant to have presented his Petition to the Crown, and the Crown would then have referred the matter to their Lordships' House, and they would have had an opportunity of inquiring into the question. This Petition was, however, presented directly to their Lordships' House, which had propria vi not power to inquire or to make any such Order. The noble Duke had referred to the cases of other Scotch Peerages; but he (the Marquess of Huntly) ventured to say that if they could have a Return of all Scotch Peerages—-which, he admitted, would be difficult to get—which had been added to the Union Roll since the Act of Union, he would find not a single instance of a Peerage having been struck off the Roll and inserted again at a different date. In every instance the insertion of the Peers on the Union Roll of Scotland allowed them to be represented in their Lordships' House, and in not one case had there been one of the Peerages inserted on that Roll altered to a later date. All that he desired was that the Peers of Scotland should retain their rights and privileges. The Decreet of Ranking in 1606 was issued by the Commissioners who were appointed by James the First of England
  950
  and Sixth of Scotland for that purpose, and all the Scottish Peers were entered on it in their order of precedence—so that he was disposed to regard it as a very important judicial document, and one certainly of much greater importance than the noble Duke seemed to think it was. In the Decreet the first Earldom of Mar was ranked at about the date of 1457—two centuries before the Decreet of Ranking was issued; whereas the second Earldom was in 1565, about 40 years before that issue. The effect of the Resolution of the noble Duke would be to extinguish the Peerage of 1457, and to substitute for it that of the Earldom of 1565, and it would be absurd to suppose that those who made up the Decreet in 1606 were not aware of this title 40 years after its presumed creation. Apparently they knew nothing of it, and this was surely a strong argument in favour of the ancient Earldom. If there had been any ground for the Resolution at all, it ought to have been moved within a month or so of the settlement of the claim to the Mar Peerage; but, inasmuch as that had taken place in 1875, surely the better course would have been to consult the Committee of Privileges; or, at all events, so long a time having elapsed, a Commission might have been asked for to investigate into all matters connected with the Scotch Peerage, rather than their Lordships should have been asked to attempt to settle a difficult Peerage case by a Resolution of this character. This was a question in which the whole of the Peerage of Scotland was concerned. They were a very small body, and he thought that any Resolution submitted to their Lordships tampering with an historic Peerage of very ancient date, which had been fixed by the Decreet of Ranking at 1475, and which was acknowledged accordingly at the time of the Union, ought to be very carefully considered before it was adopted. He hoped that this discussion would be the means of calling their Lordships' attention to the case of the Scotch Peerages —which might be truly called long-suffering Peerages. He hoped the time would come when all those who had a right to call themselves Scotch Peers would have a seat in their Lordships' House. Limited in number as they were, he believed that all of them

  951
  were far earlier in date than 400 Peerages of England. Their Lordships would, he hoped, be very cautious before they struck this ancient Peerage out of its place on the Poll, and substituted for it a modern Peerage. Such a proceeding was contrary to precedent, and therefore, without entering into the controversy which had been raised as to who was Earl of Mar, he now took the liberty of moving the Previous Question.
  And it was then moved, "That this Question be now put."—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, the first objection raised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) was that this proceeding ought to have been by Petition to the Crown; but his position was untenable, because in all cases of dispute in respect to Privilege they were settled by Petition to that House, who were perfectly competent to do what they were asked to do by the Petition. That was a matter of universal practice, and was one which had been resorted to on numberless occasions—and their Lordships would agree that it was a reasonable and proper course to be pursued in a matter of that kind. The noble Marquess said that the noble Duke asked them to strike out a Peerage. But the Resolution did nothing of the sort—it proposed to order that that Peerage should be called in the place and precedence that had been adjudged to it. At the time that the Decreet of Ranking was made there was no Earldom of Mar held by an Erskine, the heir of that family then sitting in Parliament as Lord Erskine. The House had jurisdiction to declare the right to a Scotch Peerage, and had always held that the Committee of Privileges was the only tribunal to decide questions of Peerage. The Amendment of the noble Marquess amounted simply to this —that the House should declare that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. Having found a particular date for a Peerage, it was now proposed only to place it on the Roll at that date. Prom the time of the death of the last heir male to the Earldom of Mar, in 1377, there was no proof of anyone having sat in Parliament as Earl of Mar, except under new creations to persons in no way descended from the old Earls. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Kellie) came
  952
  forward and claimed the Peerage as having been created in 1565; and showed that his ancestors sat as Lord Erskine up to 29th July in that year, and two days after as Earl of Mar, the Queen's marriage having taken place in the interval. His opponent claimed that it did not date from 1565, but from a much earlier date; but he could show no ground for his contention, and the decision of the House was that down to 1565 there was in reality no Earldom of Mar held by an Erskine; and, therefore, the person claiming from the earlier descent was not Earl of Mar, but the person claiming from the creation of 1565 was. Whether that decision was right or wrong, it was the decision of the House; and the Earl of Mar now asked, in accordance with that decision, to be called in his place on the Roll as established by that decision. The noble Marquess said that it ought to have been done at once; and he (the Earl of Redesdale) wished it had been. If it had been, it would have prevented a scene of confusion which took place at the election of last year, when a person came forward and declared the Earl of Kellie not to be the Earl of Mar that was entitled to vote. The House ought to take care that such a scene should not occur again. If Mr. Erskine could come forward and make a claim to the Earldom of Mar, and establish his claim under the earlier title, then indeed the ease would be different. His opinion was that the Earl of Mar and Kellie having established his claim, his name ought to be called in the Roll of Peers in the place determined by the House, and not in accordance with the view of the noble Marquess. He therefore trusted their Lordships would not agree to his Motion.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELDconsidered there was no precedent for what had been done. The whole foundation of this claim arose from very curious circumstances. One Thomas Randolph had written a letter on the last day of July, 1565, in which he says that to honour the feast of Queen Mary's marriage Lord Erskine was made Earl of Mar; and it was stated that when the letter was produced his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Chelmsford) said it was a gossiping letter, and nothing more—particularly the postscriptum al-

  953
  luding to the Earl of Mar. He thought little importance was to be attached to the letter of Mr. Randolph. The Committee of Privileges having come to a decision on the 25th February, 1875; on the following day it was reported to the House, whereupon it appeared upon the Journals that the Lord Clerk Register should insert the name of the Earl of Mar on the Roll, dating from the creation of 1565. But when they came to do so they were very much puzzled, because they found that there was no such name there. The Committee came to the Resolution that the claim to the Mar Peerage created in 1565 was proved, but they never said one word about the Peerage created in 1457, and therefore that Peerage remained to the present moment. The Committee of Privileges, in their Report, unfortunately came to an erroneous conclusion, founded upon no facts whatever. Had that Committee taken the opinion of those versed in Scotch Law they might have avoided certain errors into which they had fallen. The Decreet of Ranking was one of the most solemn decrees that was ever passed. It was found that many misconceptions had arisen as to the titles of Scotch Peers, and that Public Business was impeded, because they were always fighting. It was, therefore, found necessary to establish the rank and precedence of Scotch Peers by the Decreet of 1606, and in that Decreet the name of the noble Earl was not to be found. He was of opinion that the Resolution proposed was ultra vires, and that they could only act upon the decision of the Committee of Privileges.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that he did not propose to follow the noble Earl (the Earl of Mansfield) in his speech as to the grounds of the decision adopted by the House in 1875. They were all aware that both before that decision and afterwards there were persons who entertained different opinions on the merits of the case; but their Lordships, he thought, must hold that it having been decided in a particular way by the Resolution then arrived at, it was a question which was determined, so far as that decision went, and that it was binding on their Lordships. The present discussion must proceed upon that assumption. Assuming, therefore, that that decision was binding upon the House, he should proceed to state the reasons which led him
  954
  to believe that their Lordships could not with prudence or propriety adopt the Resolution which bad been moved by the noble Duke. There were two reasons which he would put before their Lordships as grounds for inducing them not to do so. As he understood, the effect of the Resolution would be, in the first place, to do that which was not consistent with the Resolutions of 1875; and, in the second place, instead of supporting and fortifying the authority of what was then done, it would tend as much as anything could to destroy and throw discredit upon their Lordships' authority. Their Lordships ought to be careful, in a matter involving questions of law of great nicety, before they assumed a jurisdiction which, as far as he was aware, they had never before exercised. The noble Duke in the first place affirmed, that the House, on the 26th of February 1875, had declared the Earl of Mar and Kellie to be entitled to a particular precedence according to the date of the creation of the Earldom, which the Resolution of the House said was in 1565. He (Lord Selborne) did not so read the Resolution of 1875. That Resolution, after affirming that the petitioner, Lord Kellie, had made out a claim to the dignity of Earl of Mar created in 1565, proceeded to direct that at all future meetings of the Peers of Scotland for the election of a Representative Peer the Lord Clerk Register should
  "call the title of the Earl of Mar according to its place in the Roll of Peers of Scotland called at such election, and receive and count the vote of the Earl of Mar claiming to vote in right of the said Earldom, and permit him to take part in the proceedings in such election."
  But that was a very different thing from saying that the title should be called according to the date of the creation of the Earldom. And not only did he (Lord Selborne) think that the natural meaning of those words was that it should be called according to the actual place in which it stood in the Roll of Peers, but he might appeal to what had been said by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who virtually admitted the same thing—because he said it was a pity that what was now proposed to be done was not done at that time. The natural meaning of the words was, that the noble Earl should be called at the place in which his name appeared up to

  955
  that time on the Roll of Peers. Although these questions of Peerage were in form settled by the House of Lords, they all knew that the real tribunal which settled them was the Committee of Privileges, and the Committee of Privileges had decided, on grounds inconsistent with the supposition, that the ancient Earldom had been restored, although the Decreet of Ranking was relied upon as evidence of a contrary understanding in l606. If so, the only Earl of Mar, in 1606, must have been the holder of the dignity found by the House to have been created in 1565; and every Earl of Mar, from that date till the Union, had sat in the Parliament of Scotland, and had been ranked on the Union Poll and ever since, in the particular order of precedence assigned to the Earldom by the Decreet of Ranking. That Decreet rested on Royal authority, and was, by that authority, ordered to be observed by everybody, unless it should, in any particular case, be rectified by the Court of Session, at the instance of some party aggrieved. It had, in one case—that of the Earldom of Buchan—been so rectified: and an Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed in 1633, to confirm that decision in Lord Buchan's favour. Until legally rectified —if there was any error, and error was not to be assumed—for the Crown could give an earlier precedence even to a dignity created in 1565—that order of precedence was equivalent to a declaration of the Sovereign, the fountain of honour. The place of the Earl of Mar in the Decreet of Ranking was not the only anomaly there—the Earl of Sutherland also was not ranked according to the date of the creation of that Earldom, as it had been recognized in the House of Lords. If the House took upon itself to alter the Roll in this case, why should it not do so, if asked, in the case of the Earldom of Sutherland also? The Union Roll was solemnly referred to in the Statute of 1847 as an authentic List of the Peerage of Scotland: and the House had never altered it, except by adding names when a right to any Peerage not entered in that Roll had been established. The effect of the Resolution of 1875 was not to strike out any existing Peerage, but the Lord Clerk Register was directed to call the title of the Earl of Mar in its existing place and precedence. It appeared to him to be a matter of serious
  956
  importance when their Lordships were asked to interfere with the existing precedence on the Union Roll of the existing Scotch Peers. There ought to be some precedent for such a proceeding; but none had been referred to, and if there were no such precedent, their Lordships would concur with him that none ought to be made—at all events none ought to be made by a Resolution like this. He thought nothing would be more objectionable than for the House to take upon itself, in this way, to rectify any error, if error there were, in the ranking of the Peerage, and in the Decreet of 1606. Acts of Parliament had been thought necessary in 1847 and 1851, to give the House power to interfere, in certain cases, with the manner of calling the Peers of Scotland at Elections of Representative Peers, and to regulate the conditions under which that power was to be exercised. The only safe and prudent course was, to keep within the limits of that Statutory power.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould not avoid thinking that the Resolution which the noble Duke had submitted might lead their Lordships into a position of considerable embarrassment. The form of the Resolution had been slightly altered; but even in the ameliorated form in which it appeared on the Paper, their Lordships, by adopting it, would, under the guise of passing a Resolution, make a judicial, or, if not a judicial, a legislative declaration. Two years ago a Committee of Privileges investigated the claim to the Earldom of Mar, and he well remembered that the inquiry extended over a great length of time, and involved some of the most difficult questions in tracing Peerages that could well be imagined. As a Member of the Committee, he concurred in the Resolution at which the Committee arrived, although he never recollected a case in which sympathy was more elicited for the claimant who did not succeed. That gentleman had been generally supposed to be entitled to the Earldom, and he had been accepted by all who were related to the family, and, among the rest, by the particular family who afterwards became his opponents. After the most patient investigation, however, the Committee of Privileges arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Goodeve Erskine

  957
  had not substantiated his claim, and that Lord Kellie had made good his claim to the Earldom which had its origin in the year 1565. That conclusion was affirmed by their Lordships' House, and, in his opinion, was conclusive. The order made on the occasion by the House was entirely affirmative; but if the Resolution of the noble Duke were adopted, the decision so arrived at would be re-opened and supplemented by that which was not a natural corollary, but something very different and much higher, and which, in the shape of a Resolution, would be a judicial declaration or a legislative act. Further than that, by adopting the Resolution, their Lordships would affect the Union Roll of Scotch Peers, which, by the Act of 1847, was declared to be an authoritative list of the Peers of Scotland as they stood before the Union. It appeared from the same Act that sundry Peerages of Scotland had since been added by order of the House of Lords at different times. There was nothing said, however, about subtracting from the list. It stood as an authentic list, and, except the additions, nothing appeared to have been done to it. That Act was a very strong expression of the view of the Legislature—that, if anything was to be done in the Union Roll, it was to be done by legislative authority, and not merely by a vote of the House. It seemed to him their Lordships would be taking a very dangerous course in doing now by Resolution of the House what was supposed in 1847 to require the authority of an Act of Parliament. Therefore, he thought they ought to hesitate before they accepted the proposal of the noble Duke. In his opinion, the most satisfactory mode of dealing with the question would be to appoint a Select Committee to consider the matter of the Petition of the Earl of Mar and Kellie and the precedents applicable thereto, and to report thereon to the House.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he had before expressed an opinion that no Resolution of either House would stand firm unless it was supported by the law of the land, and he considered that it would be a very unfortunate step to take for the House to bind itself to any particular Resolution.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHexpressed his willingness to withdraw his
  958
  Motion, and to accept a Resolution in the terms mentioned by the noble and learned Lord.
  Then the said Motion and the original Motion were (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then it was moved,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the matter of the petition of the Earl of Mar and Kellie presented on the 5th of June 1877, and the precedents applicable thereto; and to report thereon to the House.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to.
  And, on Tuesday, July 17, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  Ld. President.

  D. Somerset.

  E. Doncaster.

  E. Mansfield.

  E. Granville.

  E. Eedesdale.

  L. Elphinstone.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  L. Meldrum.

  L. Rosebery.

  L. Chelmsford.

  L. Penzance.

  L. Selborne.

  L. Blackburn.

  L. Gordon of Drumearn.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I must again ground my plea for your Lordships' indulgence in the deep interest which for now nearly a quarter of a century I have taken in Middle Class Education. As to Endowed Schools, I may be allowed to mention that some 15 years ago, at the request of a number of distinguished friends of Education, including several Members of both Houses, who had done me the honour to meet for a conference at my house, I presented to the then President of the Council a Memorial praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the many educational endowments scattered over the country. We were much gratified soon after by hearing that a most able Commission had been appointed, presided over by the late lamented Lord Taunton, which, after a long and careful enquiry, presented one of the most statesmanlike, exhaustive and, in my view, conclusive Reports I ever read. The only misfortune was that its recommendations were so little heeded, if, in truth, they were read, either by the late or present Government.
  The late Government, indeed, proposed a measure purporting in its Preamble to be framed upon that Report;

  959
  but omitting the most important of its recommendations—that upon which in the language of the Commissioners subsequently appointed by that Government, "the scheme of the Report mainly rested." And the Act as passed embodied little more than what was only a subsidiary recommendation of the Report, though one always acceptable to the official mind—namely, the establishment of a Central Commission to do all the work, local as well as central, which the Report had recommended should devolve mainly upon local bodies entitled in it "Provincial Authorities," slightly controlled and brought into harmonious action by a merely supervising central authority. The Endowed Schools Act was, therefore, practically an arch with the keystone left out—the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted —as might be seen by an enumeration of some of the chief duties and responsibilities proposed in the Report to be entrusted, to these Provincial Authorities. They were to determine the grade of the school; to fix absolutely the age at which the boys were to leave, and to lay down certain limits as to the fees to be paid and subjects to be taught; to settle whether the school should have boarders or not; to make regulations as to the master's remuneration; and to change the conditions on which Exhibitions and Scholarships should be held. The Commissioners concluded their long and carefully reasoned-out description of the duties and powers of the proposed Provincial Authority by saying that each
  "would he, in their opinion, the proper body to draw up new schemes for the regulation of schools within its Province, and submit them through the Charity Commissioners, or some central authority, to Parliament."
  I was glad to hear from the late Secretary to the Colonies the other day an energetic protest against centralization, and a stout defence of local self-government. I only regretted that he should have applied those generally sound principles to the case of the Prisons Bill—in my opinion a very good measure on the whole—and prison administration, a subject to which the objections were not fairly applicable. But I regretted still more that he should have concurred with his Colleagues in the wanton creation of a new centralized administrative bureau, acting through Government Inspectors sent down from London, to
  960
  dispose finally and irrevocably of more than £20,000,000 worth of educational endowments in different parts of the country; while the Report by which his Colleagues and himself professed to be guided stated that the
  "necessity of dealing with schools in groups seems plainly to imply the corresponding necessity of local hoards to deal with them."
  The noble President of the Council disappointed me sadly by saying in his reply to me last year, when I urged the Government to pass a Bill for the establishment of Provincial Authorities, that, in his opinion, the Central Commissioners
  "were more capable of taking a fair and impartial view of what was required in each district than persons who, from local considerations, would be anxious to have schools of the highest grade,"
  though the Schools Inquiry Commissioners spoke of their proposed Provincial Authority as
  "capable of thoroughly understanding and appreciating local claims, and yet not hampered by the tendency to consider them alone."
  It was in reliance on the recommendations, and still more on the cogent reasoning and evidence, of that Report, that both during the passing of the Endowed Schools Act, and repeatedly since, I have pressed for the establishment of some provincial Boards; and, in their absence, confidently predicted the failure of the central authority to do the work really well. Even if the composition of the Endowed Schools Commission, able and honourable as were its Members, had been as satisfactory as, owing to the previously-published opinions of at least one of them, I thought it was the reverse; even if they had, in their administration, shown as much judgment and discretion, as several divisions proved, that in the opinion of this House, they had not, they could not satisfactorily accomplish their allotted task, because they had work to do which, in the language of the Report of 1869
  "cannot really be dealt with by a central authority alone, but requires the co-operation of a local body which, as a matter of course, must be capable of looking at the county, or perhaps several counties as a whole, but which shall know the district well, and* not act in mere dependence on the Reports of its officers."
  The Endowed Schools Commissioners told you, in their Report of 1872, that

  961
  they had tried to deal with schools in groups, which the Report of 1869 had described as absolutely necessary, but found that under the Endowed Schools Act the difficulty of doing so was too great, and that they had in consequence given up that idea, and resolved to treat each case as an isolated one on its own merits. Their Successors were admirably selected, and seem to have acted as judiciously as circumstances allowed. But while praising their appointment in this House two years ago, I confidently said they could not do really well under the Endowed Schools Acts of 1870 and 1875, and I repeat to-day that even superhuman wisdom would not have enabled them to succeed.
  I shall now proceed to show how unsatisfactorily, when tried by the noble Duke's own test, the two successive Central Commissions have worked in the important matter of school grades. I may remind your Lordships that the Schools Inquiry Commissioners explain that by 1st grade, they mean a school where the boys leave at 18 or 19; by 2nd grade, one where they have to leave about 16; by 3rd grade, at about 14; and that, after very careful investigation, they had satisfied themselves on several quite independent grounds, that in town districts 16 out of every 1,000 boys wanted some school higher than the public elementary school; that at least half, or eight of the 16, wanted 3rd grade schools; the 1st grade, according to the prevalence or not of classics, having either two or three, and the 2nd grade, six or five. They state that—
  "The most urgent educational need of the country is that of good schools of the 3rd grade— that is, of those which shall carry education up to the age of 14 or 15. It is just here that the Endowed Schools appear most signally to fail, while nothing else takes their place.… And the private schools cannot be relied upon to fill this gap, for as soon as a Master is thoroughly successful in a school of this sort, there is everything to induce him to raise his terms and fill his school with hoys of a higher social class."
  Now, I have ascertained that up to the present time, schemes for 220 schools have been finally approved by the successive Central Authorities, of which at least 110 ought, as I have just shown, to have been 3rd grade, whereas there are only 93; while the 1st and 2nd grades are respectively 42 and 85— making together 127, instead of only
  962
  110; and of these the proportion of 1st grade is far too large.
  Now, the undue multiplication of 1st and 2nd grade schools will not only be a. waste of money, but by furnishing a supply in excess of the natural demand, will tend to diminish the prosperity and, with it, the efficiency of each school. You will have a disastrous competition between them for pupils. They will either lower their prices to keep up their numbers, and thus tempt parents to send their children to schools of too high a grade, and to keep them unduly long at learning, instead of beginning earning; or they will have their schools half empty with fewer masters, obliged each to teach more subjects, and therefore teaching less well; while, in either case, the standard of masters will be lowered through the impaired prospects of remuneration offered.
  Political economists have divided work into three classes—that of production, of distribution, and of verification; the work of production involving in most cases far more and far heavier bodily labour than either the work of distributing, as merchants, shopkeepers, and carriers do, that which has been produced; or the work of verifying, as lawyers, accountants, and others do, the legality and accuracy of transactions. It is obvious that the number of distributors and verifiers required must depend in great measure upon the amount of raw or manufactured produce to be dealt with. When the learned Professions, and that of clerks and such like are already so overstocked, when trade is dull and manufactures slack, is it wise to multiply schools for qualifying boys chiefly for the work of distribution or verification, involving only little or very light manual labour, and to stint the number of 3rd grade schools, better suited to boys early to be trained to hard bodily labour—to increase our present tendency to the condition of some place in Germany, where it was said some time ago, "a Professor could be had easier and cheaper than a stonemason?"
  I have said that the classes using the 1st and 2nd grade schools, thus unduly multiplied, will have the education of their children in them deteriorated in consequence. But what is far more serious, the best of the lower middle class, and the most intelligent and self-

  963
  denying of the artizans, willing to make sacrifices in order to secure for their children a better education than they had themselves enjoyed, will be cruelly and unjustly denied their fair share of the benefits of the magnificent educational endowment, yielding more than £666,000 a-year, and worth more than £20,000,000, provided by the pious munificence of our ancestors. And their case will be all the harder because, for reasons which I have already given from the Report, they cannot expect the void thus needlessly created to be supplied by private enterprize; and the present respectable misapplication of these endowments is much more hopelessly irrevocable than was the previous state of abuse, misuse, and disuse of many of them which invited reform.
  It is sad to think of the mischief that has already been done, of nearly two-fifths of these Endowments already as good as finally disposed of—or some £250,000 out of £666,000 a-year income, or near £8,000,000 out of the £20,000,000 it is worth at 30 years' purchase; but sadder still to think of the future mischief that will be done to the cause of Education, if the remaining more than£12,000,000 are to be, as I fear they will, much of them, similarly misapplied; and saddest to reflect that this is the result of the ever increasingly bureaucratic inclinations and centralizing action of successive Administrations.
  Moved for—
  "Return made out, county by county, with in each case a proximate estimate of the annual endowments of

  "1. The number of schemes finally approved and in force in England and Wales under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869, 1873, and 1874;

  "2. The number of schemes published by the Charity Commissioners under those Acts, but not yet finally approved;

  "3. The Endowed Schools not returned in 1. and 2. nor included in section 3. of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, which are within the general provisions of the Endowed Schools Acts;

  "4. The aggregate number and income of Endowed Schools included in section 3. of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873: Also,

  "Return of the number and grades (as determined by maximum age of scholars, amount of fees payable, and course of instruction) of schools established or regulated by schemes approved under the Endowed Schools Acts, in the following form.

  SCHEMES submitted by

  1st Grade.

  2nd Grade

  3rd Grade.

  Elementary Schools.

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  Charity Commismissioners

  Total

  —(The Earl Fortescue.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that as the Return moved for by the noble Earl was wholly unopposed, he should not have thought it necessary to trouble the House with any remarks were it not that it might be supposed that he agreed in the views stated by the noble Earl if he allowed them to pass wholly uncontroverted. As to the advisability of a central authority carrying out operations in regard to the Endowed Schools throughout the country, Parliament had decided that these schools should be in future dealt with by the Charity Commissioners—he would not go into the question whether that decision was right or wrong; but as long as the law to that effect remained on the Statute Book, the duties of those Commissioners must be carried out. He must also emphatically deny that there had been any failure on the part of the central authority to do what was desired. There was nothing in the present law, or in the practice of the Charity Commissioners, which could prevent a local inquiry being made, if they thought fit, into the requirements of the districts with which they dealt; and, moreover, if they deemed a public inquiry to be necessary, it was within their power to hold one. If the noble Earl had gone into specific instances in particular districts where the Commissioners had failed in doing their duty, he would have taken a more practical course than he had done by making vague charges in general terms. The noble Earl had made accusations without bringing forward proofs to substantiate them, one of those unsupported accusations being that the operations of the Charity Commissioners constituted a cruel denial of education to the middle classes. [Earl FORTESCUE: I said the lower middle class.] He ventured to say there had been no cruel denial of

  965
  education to the lower middle class, and that the noble Earl ought not to have made that charge against such a body without proving it. It must be remembered that the work of the Charity Commissioners was not yet completed; and, as far as he could ascertain, he believed that they were acting in a manner which was most conducive to the educational interests of the country, and which also reflected credit on their exertions.
  Motion agreed to.
  Returns ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.