Lords Sitting of 22 March 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Education (Scotland) (47).
Select Committee — Contagious Diseases (Animals)*(37), The Marquess of Abergavenny discharged.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in presenting a Bill to amend the Scotch Education Act, said, that the Bill, though the title of it might appear somewhat large, and to refer to a very extensive measure, did not in reality do so; and it would not be necessary that he should make any lengthened explanation in reference to the points which were dealt with in it. The Bill was not a very long one. It contained only 24 clauses—but it dealt with questions that had been discussed in their Lordship's House during the last two or three Sessions, and as regarded some of them, so far as England was concerned, action had already been taken by the English Education Act of 1876. The clauses of the Bill might be fairly classified under three heads. The first was that which enacted for Scotland— with certain modifications and certain features specially required—the chief provisions of the English Education Act of 1876. Secondly, it supplied certain technical omissions, and remedied difficulties which had occurred in the working of the Scotch Education Act of 1872; but, at the same time, without in any way inter-
  fering with the main provisions and conditions of that measure. The object of the third head was to remove certain grievances, and to deal with certain special objects which had been strongly felt by the people of Scotland, and which had been urged very much on the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The first portion of the Bill—the first 16 out of the 24 clauses of the Bill—related to providing facilities for education and labour. This part of the Bill had been so recently discussed and approved of by their Lordships that he should be much surprised if anybody was found to object to the provisions he proposed to introduce. It was proposed, in the first place, that no child should be taken to work who was under the age of 10 years; in the second place, that no child should be allowed to work between the ages of 10 and 13 unless that child should have passed a particular standard; and provision was made for what was called the casual employment of children—or rather, the Bill provided against their casual employment—which must Commend itself to every person who had the interest of the children and of education at heart. It had been represented to Her Majesty's Government that in many of the larger cities in Scotland a practice prevailed of allowing young children to be sent out late at night into the streets for the purpose of selling matches, newspapers, and other things of that kind. Now, it must be obvious to everyone that, for the sake of the health of the children, their moral condition, and their powers of learning during school hours in the day-time, that nothing could be more prejudicial than to allow these children of tender age to be running about the streets of a large city during the late hours of the night. The Government, therefore, proposed by a clause in this Bill to put an end to that practice; which they believed to be very injurious to the children, and one with respect to which many complaints had been received. It would not be necessary to incorporate in this Bill any of the provisions which it was found necessary to introduce into the Act of 1876 as applied to England, because the condition of the two countries as to schools and school accommodation was so different. In England, as their Lordships were aware, the school boards were set up to supplement and add to the voluntary

  1829
  schools throughout the country; and, therefore, it was necessary in 1876, when further powers were given to the managers of these schools to compel the attendance of children and not allow them to go to work unless under certain conditions, to give certain powers to the English school boards; but in Scotland there was a school board in every parish already, simply because the board school now took the place of the original parish school, which before 1872was maintained by the heritors. There were exemptions in this part of the Bill, with respect to the employment of children in certain occupations of husbandry and the ingathering of crops, which would be found in the Bill of 1876. These provisions were contained in the first 16 clauses of the Bill. With regard to the other provisions—in the Act of 1872 there was no power to allow of a member of a school board to resign—they had now introduced a clause to make it competent for a member of a school board to resign, and the Education Department were empowered to 611 up the vacancy, in order to do away with the necessity and cost of a bye election, should the vacancy occur in the interval between the regular school board elections. Another point which the working of the Act had shown to be necessary to provide for was that of making up a quorum. Take the case, which had happened in practice, of a school board composed of five members—one died, leaving four members of the board; two of these members held one opinion, and the other two a different opinion; the consequence was that it was impossible to carry on the work of the school board, as neither party would agree to proceed to the election of a chairman, and get on with the business. There was therefore introduced into the Bill a clause enabling the Department to add to the board, under such circumstances, so as to form a quorum. Another very important matter with regard to the higher class schools was this—A doubt had been thrown upon one of the clauses of the Act of 1872, as to whether there was power under that section to give money towards the enlargement and improvement of the higher class schools. It was, of course, a great advantage that these schools should be improved and enlarged, and therefore it was proposed under this Bill to give power to improve
  1830
  and enlarge the higher class schools. Other clauses made provisions in respect of costs of prosecutions on behalf of school boards, and with respect to the cost of the valuation roll. Another very important point with which the Bill proposed to deal was to reduce very much the expenses of election. Previous to the last election, the Education Department issued a Circular describing certain charges which should be made, and endeavouring to reduce the expenses as much as possible. This Circular was acted upon in very many instances, but some doubts being entertained whether the Department in issuing it had not acted ultra vires, certain words were inserted in the Schedule of the Bill which would make the powers of the Department quite clear. The other two points were—first of all, the powers given to the Department to examine the higher class schools. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that if power were given to the Department of Education to send one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools to examine the higher class schools, two benefits would be derived— first, uniformity in the system of examination in these schools; secondly, these examinations being in the hands of gentlemen of high attainments, the result must be to elevate the tone and mode of examining in these schools. The only remaining subject was one about which there had been very considerable feeling in Scotland—the position of the parochial teachers. The parochial teachers were a very large body in Scotland—it was but right to say that they were highly-educated men; and undoubtedly their position before the passing of the Act of 1872 was not satisfactory. The difficulty of getting rid of them was so great that it was thought necessary some alteration should be made; but it seemed that the Act of 1872 erred rather too much in the other direction, and the parochial teacher was deprived of the position which he justly held in Scotland, and his social status was reduced below that which it was right or desirable should be done. The Government proposed to enable school boards to make agreements with their teachers to hold office for a period not exceeding five years, subject always to the power of dismissal provided by the Act of 1872. By giving to teachers a longer period of office, he believed that

  1831
  their social position would be improved, and that to a great extent school boards would be enabled to avail themselves of the services of gentlemen of higher educational qualifications; because it was not necessary to point out that school boards would be more likely to obtain the services of a better class of men if more security was given that their position would not be altered within a very short period. These were the main provisions of the Bill. He had now only to present the measure to their Lordships, and ask them to read it the first time.
  Bill to further amend the provisions of the Law of Scotland on the subject of Education, and for other purposes connected therewith—Presented (The LORD PRESIDENT.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not propose to say anything as to the provisions contained in the Bill his noble Friend had presented; but he wished to point out that his noble Friend had said nothing about the Scotch Education Board—was he to understand that it was not intended to continue the Scotch Education Board?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the subject referred to by his noble Friend was no part of the question that could be appropriately dealt with by the present Bill. The Act under which the Scotch Board existed would expire in August next, and it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament to renew that Act.
  Bill read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Monday the 1st of April (No. 47.)

ARMY—THE MUTINY ACT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he desired to call attention to an Amendment that had been made in that House on Friday last. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that, when on that evening a noble Lord suggested that, with a view of preventing desertion and fraudulent re-enlistment, all officers and men in Her Majesty's Army should be marked, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell) made the announcement that Her Majesty's Government were about to remit to a Parliamentary
  1832
  Committee the question of the expediency of a revision of the Mutiny Act, and it was suggested that the abolition of branding deserters, and the substitution of a mark upon all officers and men on entering the Army, should be referred to the same Committee. Such an announcement, coming from such a quarter, took him (the Earl of Galloway) by surprise, and he could not but hope that when he made it the noble Viscount was labouring under a delusion and a snare of his own imagination. When the noble Viscount was at the War Office a part of his military policy was to carry things with a high hand, and he could not help thinking that the noble Viscount, in making that announcement, must have been under the temporary delusion that he was at the War Office still, and therefore entitled to make the announcement. Certainly, the announcement ought to have come from a Member of the Government, instead of a Member of the Opposition. Assuming, however, that there was authority for the announcement, then he heard it with very great regret. What was the Mutiny Act? It was a compendium of the regulations for the preservation of discipline in Her Majesty's Land Forces. If a revision of that Act was desirable, it must have arisen from special causes, which must have been known to the Minister for War; and, instead of sheltering himself under the Report of a Select Committee, the Secretary for War should, on his own responsibility, have proposed to Parliament such changes in the Act as he thought were required to make it what it ought to be. If he wanted assistance in making those changes, he should seek it at the hands of the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, of the Staff of the War Office, and, perhaps, of the Law Officers of the Crown. It would be matter for regret if there was collusion between the Secretary for War and the noble Viscount. He was sure the noble Viscount would understand that he meant nothing personal to him; but he would beg to call to mind what had been the chief characteristics of the noble Viscount's administration of the War Department. In the first place, the noble Viscount abolished purchase —and in doing so not only disregarded the decision of the House of Lords, but stretched the Prerogative of the Queen

  1833
  infinitely more than it had ever been stretched before. He next established a system of brigade depots—a subject upon which he (the Earl of Galloway) hoped to propose a specific Motion later in the Session, when the political horizon would be somewhat less clouded than it was at the present moment, inasmuch as he considered that what had been done would be subversive of military discipline, and would involve the country in extravagant expenditure. In the third place, when the noble Viscount ceased to reign supreme at the War Office, every rank of the Service was at such a pitch of discontent that the illustrious Duke Commanding-in-Chief considered it necessary to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject. He trusted their Lordships would forgive him for having brought forward the subject of the Mutiny Act at such a juncture as this; but he had been impelled to do so because he looked upon the announcement which the noble Viscount made as exceeding the bounds of Parliamentary propriety. He begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remit to a Parliamentary Committee the question of the expediency of a revision of the Mutiny Act?
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that the Mutiny Acts for the Army and Navy were renewed every year. As they underwent very little alteration from Session to Session, he thought the large expenses of printing them every year— occupying, as they did, 300 pages—might be curtailed; only those clauses which were modified to be included in the volume of Statutes.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he agreed with the noble Earl that it was highly inconvenient that such an announcement as that referred to by the noble Earl should not have been made by Her Majesty's Government. He must also enter his protest against the remission of the question of a revision of the Mutiny Act to a Parliamentary Committee. The responsibility of introducing that Act devolved on the Ministers of the Crown, and it was incumbent on them to initiate any changes in it which they might think necessary. It was essential that the renewing Bill should be passed within a very short time, seeing that the existing Act expired on the
  1834
  25th April. He had heard the announcement of the intention to refer the Act to a Parliamentary Committee with alarm, and if such conduct were to be regarded as a precedent, it would be a very dangerous precedent indeed. There ought to be no sign of wavering or doubt in the War Department at the present time, when on all sides people were perfectly ready to sacrifice individual political feeling in order to thoroughly support the Government in whatever efforts they were about to make.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in answer to the Question of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Galloway), had to say that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War had determined to remit to a Parliamentary Committee the question of the expediency of a revision of the Mutiny Act. The noble Lord (Lord Waveney) had pointed out that it was essential that the Bill should be passed within a very limited time. That was true; but it was not the intention of his right hon. Friend that the Act should be referred to a Select Committee until after the Mutiny Bill had been passed for the present year. It was known probably to most of their Lordships that a great many Notices of objections to various clauses of the Bill had been given in the other House of Parliament, and if these were to be considered in the House of Commons, they must lead to long discussions, which would delay the progress of the Bill. His noble Friend had reminded him that the initiative in respect of the Bill rested on Her Majesty's Government — that the Bill was brought in on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. That was true; but he must, at the same time, point out that the Mutiny Bill differed from no other Bill brought into either House of Parliament in this respect. Like all other Bills, it might be referred to a Select Committee of the House in which it was brought forward for the consideration of the whole of its provisions. The course which the Secretary for War intended to pursue after the passing of the Mutiny Bill was this— His right hon. Friend thought it the most convenient course to refer the whole question of the administration of our military law to a Select Committee, with the intention of producing a revised Mutiny Bill next year. The Mutiny Bill was of very old date. It had been

  1835
  re-modelled to suit various emergencies on various occasions, and it was now found to be cumbersome and also to contain ambiguities which ought to be removed. No doubt a Select Committee would be able to produce a much more perfect instrument. It was no' part of his duty to defend his noble Friend (Viscount Cardwell); but he was bound to point out that when the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) assumed the noble Viscount to have made an announcement for which he had no public authority, his noble Friend had in his mind an answer given by his right hon. Friend in "another place." Replying to a Question put to him in "another place" some time ago, his right hon. Friend said that the Mutiny Act would be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD HOUGHTONthought that if the Act were referred to a Parliamentary Committee, it ought to be to a joint Committee of the two Houses.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNbegged leave to submit to their Lordships, with professional deference, one or two observations respecting the subject before the House. He believed that the proposal to submit the revision of the Mutiny Act to a Committee of the House of Commons was quite a novelty and not one which afforded a reasonable prospect of practical improvement. He ventured to add that this opinion did not refer in any way exclusively to the House of Commons, for whose legislation and proceedings he had the greatest possible respect, but referred equally to their Lordship's House. He submitted that, as a rule, civil and military' questions were safest in the hands of their respective Departments, whose experience qualified them to deal with the subject. Legal military matters were of the special competence of the Judge Advocate General's Department, whose subordinate officers were distributed throughout the Army. If the revision of the Mutiny Act were placed in the hands of a Parliamentary Committee, its first step would be to send for officers of the Judge Advocate General's Department and select military officers to give them information on the subject. This would be a waste of time and trouble. In these circumstances, he thought the revision of the Mutiny Act would better be entrusted to a Military than a Parliamentary Committee
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, that from his experience of his noble Friend (the Earl of Galloway) in the House of Commons, he was sure that his noble Friend was quite sincere when he said that he meant nothing personal by his observations. He could assure him that there was no collusion between himself and the Secretary for War. He never presumed to make any announcement on Friday on behalf of Her Majesty's Government or of the Secretary for War —he had simply referred to a statement that had been made in "another place." The idea of a reference of the Mutiny Act to a Select Committee was not a delusion and a snare of his imagination, but a measure proposed by the Secretary of State some time ago, as the noble Earl might have found if he had taken some slight pains in making himself acquainted with the records of Hansard. It might have been as well for his noble Friend to have been at the pains of such a reference before lecturing him on Parliamentary propriety.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYexpressed his deep regret that he had laid himself open to the correction of the noble Viscount, and thanked him (Viscount Card-well) for the courteous way in which he had commented on his mistake.
  LORD WAVENEYhad heard the statement respecting the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) with very much satisfaction, so far as it went; but regretted the determination of the Government to refer the Act to a Parliamentary Committee.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, this was not an explanation, and the noble Lord was not entitled to a second speech on the same subject.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.