Lords Sitting of 29 March 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Mutiny*; Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) (56).
Committee—Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment (34–55).

PARLIAMENT—MILITIA OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICH THE EARL OF SANDWICH asked the noble Lord who now represented the War Office in that House, Whether Militia Officers could absent themselves without leave from their regiments in order to attend to their Parliamentary duties?
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that officers of the Militia who were also Members of Parliament had conflicting duties to perform—their military duties, and their legislative duties. Their Parliamentary duties over-rode all others; and the Parliamentary duties of officers had always been regarded as over-riding military duties. The military authorities had always granted leave to officers to enable them to attend their Parliamentary duties. At the same time, his noble Friend, as the commander of a Militia regiment, must know that his officers were under the Mutiny Act, and that he could give them any orders and assign to them any duties performed by regimental officers. If thay did not fulfil them or pleaded Parliamentary duty, and he did not consider their excuse satisfactory, he could bring the matter under the notice of the authorities, and the officers might have to make an election as to the duty they would continue to perform. A case was brought under the notice of the Duke of Wellington, in which an officer absented himself from his military duty and alleged that he did so in the performance of his Parliamentary duty. The Duke of Wellington placed him under arrest, and refused to release him on that excuse. He did not say that the authority of the Duke of Wellington was conclusive on the point; because, in another case, an officer absented himself from his military duty to attend a Parliamentary Committee to which he had been summoned as a witness. He was tried for desertion of duty, and a conflict

  185
  between the Military and Parliamentary authorities ensued. The latter concluded the case by deciding that an officer called as a witness before a Parliamentary Committee could plead exemption from military duty, and that in the case of such a person no leave was necessary. A case bearing on a question somewhat similar to that raised by his noble Friend was before the Law Officers for their opinion. As officers of Militia were not engaged at military duties throughout the whole year like officers of the Army, but only for a short time, he was sure they would have the good feeling not to put their commanding officers to the inconvenience of raising a question on which there was a conflict of opinion.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—MESSAGE FROM THE CROWN.—QUESTIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with regard to the very grave announcement made in this House last night. It is, When the Message from the Crown calling out the Reserves will be sent down to this House, and at what time the noble Earl proposes to ask your Lordships to consider it?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, the Message from the Crown will be sent down on, I believe, Monday. I shall study the convenience of the noble Earl and of your Lordships generally as to the time at which it should be taken into consideration; but I think Thursday will be a reasonable period.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Will the Message be communicated to this House previously to the communication to the other House, or will it be communicated to both Houses the same evening?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: To both Houses on the same day.
  EARL GRANVILLE: There is a further Question on which I am still more desirous to have information. I am quite sure Her Majesty would not desire that a matter of such grave importance should be considered without the fullest information having been afforded to the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have promised in "another place" that certain Papers would be distributed to the House of Commons, and, consequently, to this House, to-day. I have received no such
  186
  Papers, and therefore I should be glad to know when those Papers will be in the hands of Members of this House? I also wish to know whether the Correspondence will include, besides the Correspondence between this country and Russia, the Correspondence with the other Powers? It is rumoured that Germany proposed a preliminary Conference. I do not know whether that is true or not, but the report makes it desirable that the Correspondence with the German Government should be included in the Papers.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: The Papers have been laid before the House, and I trust they will be in the hands of your Lordships immediately. They will not be limited to the Correspondence between this country and Russia, but will contain Papers relating to the proposition of the Congress by Austria. With regard to the time at which the Message will be taken into consideration, I have heard since I entered the House that a wish has been expressed in the other House that the consideration of the Message in the House of Commons should be earlier than Monday week. Thursday has been mentioned for it in the House of Commons; and if the noble Earl thinks that Monday week will be a convenient time for it here, I am willing to fix that day.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that will depend entirely on the Papers, which I understand from the noble Earl will not be confined to the Papers between this country and Russia; but will include, also, those between this country and Austria. I think we have a right to know the view of all the Great Powers with regard to whether there should be a Conference or not.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I shall not fix the day for the discussion till Monday.

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMEND MENT BILL—(No. 34.)
  (The Lord Sudeley.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Costs of Intervention) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Power to the Court to order provisions to be made for the wife when the husband also has been guilty of a matrimonial offence).
  LORD PENZANCEmoved to omit the clause, which, he said, would act as a premium to adulterous wives to make trumped-up charges against their husbands. Nor was it to be overlooked that if the wife succeeded in a retaliatory charge against her husband, no decree would be made; and, therefore, as he got nothing by his suit, it would be hard to compel him to make provision for his guilty wife.
  LORD SUDELEY: I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. It would, my Lords, I feel, be the height of presumption on my part, if I were to attempt to measure swords and to argue the point with so great an authority as the noble and learned Lord; but, whilst I feel the utmost diffidence in this respect, I trust your Lordships will allow me, having charge of the Bill, to state briefly some of the reasons which have induced many high and well-known authorities to support the clause as it now stands, and to state why we cannot accept the Amendment. The main object of the clause is to remove a restriction which now exists in the way of the parties disclosing all the facts to the Court, and thus to limit the necessity of the Queen's Proctor intervening. As the law at present stands, the wife knows that if she attempts to show that her husband is guilty, and succeeds in preventing a decree being granted, she will be left destitute, as the Court cannot, in such a case, order any provision to be made; and she is, therefore, almost bound to conceal the facts. The Court has power to make the innocent husband provide for the guilty wife; but it is obliged to allow the guilty husband to leave the wife destitute. Another object of the clause is to place husband and wife on the same footing, when both have been guilty, instead of allowing the punishment to fall solely on the wife. The noble and learned Lord says that if no decree is made, the man gets nothing by his suit; and that, therefore, it would be unfair to make him give a provision to his wife. But, my Lords, after the Bill becomes law, any man coming before the Court to seek relief would know what to expect, and
  188
  would be aware that if he wanted to obtain relief, he must come with clean hands. It must be remembered that this case only applies where the man is guilty of concealing facts. It is, I apprehend, well-known that in a great number of cases the wife could prove, if she dare do so, that her adultery has been caused from the example set her by her husband, and that it is due entirely to his guilt and to his neglect that she has gone wrong. Surely, my Lords, in these cases, it would be no hardship, but a simple act of justice, that the Court should have discretionary power to order provision, if it thought right, instead of leaving the poor woman destitute. Then, again, I do not think it can be said rightly, that because the man gets no decree, he, therefore, gains nothing by his suit. I apprehend if once the decree nisi has been granted, and a jury has declared the wife guilty, although no decree may be given, the husband has obtained a decided advantage, which he would unmistakeably use if proceedings were at any time instituted against him to compel him to provide her with maintenance. The result of the Amendment would be entirely to alter the character of the clause, and reduce the benefits to very small dimensions in the case where the wife was innocent; and it would not remove the blot which undoubtedly exists of its being an absolute benefit to the wife to conceal the facts. This clause has, my Lords, the support of very high authority—namely, no less person than the President of the Divorce Court, Sir James Hannen. He has been kind enough to send me a memorandum on the subject, which I have his authority to read—

  MEMORANDUM, WRITTEN BY SIR JAMES HANNEN, PRESIDENT OF THE DIVORCE COURT, IN FAVOUR OF CLAUSE.
  "1. Power to Court to order allowance to be made to a wife, though guilty, if the husband be proved guilty.

  Reasons.
  "Whatever opinion may be entertained of the value of the Queen's Proctor's intervention, it is clear that it is desirable that the necessity for it should be obviated by the parties themselves disclosing all the material facts of the case. This would almost always be more effectual than the action of the Q.P., and it would, in a majority of cases, save the public the expense of this intervention.
  "At present it is to the advantage of a guilty wife to abstain from making a countercharge

  189
  which, if established, would deprive her husband of the right to have the marriage dissolved, because by Section 32 of 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, the Court has the power, on making a decree absolute, to order the husband (though innocent), to pay a gross sum, or to make an annual allowance to his guilty wife; but it has no such power if, by reason of the husband's misconduct, his petition is dismissed.
  "If, then, power were conferred on the Court in all cases, whether the husband be successful in his suit or not, to order him to make some provision for his wife, there would not be the same inducement for her to conceal any matrimonial offence, of which her husband may have been guilty and thus the Q. P.'s intervention would usually be unnecessary.
  "This consideration alone will probably be thought to offer a sufficient reason for the proposed amendment of the law; but it seems, also, to be more consistent with justice, where both husband and wife have been guilty, that punishment should not fall on the latter only. In a majority of cases where both have committed matrimonial offences, the man has first set the bad example of his adultery, or has, by other misconduct, alienated his wife's affections, and thus contributed to his own dishonour. Yet, though this may be proved against a husband, and his suit may be dismissed on the ground of the most shameful misdeeds on his part conducing to his wife's adultery, he is able, as the law now is, to inflict the punishment of destitution on her for guilt of which he was the cause, and may take advantage of his own wrong by freeing himself from the liability to support her."
  Thus, we have, my Lords, the President of the Court in direct conflict with the ex-President; but, my Lords, this is not all. The Bill was passed through the other House by Mr. Herschell, one of the most eminent Queen's Counsel at the Bar, and Sir Henry Holland; and it has also the approval of a great portion of the Bar. I am also authorized by Sir James Hannen to state that he finds that the Professional men in the habit of practising in his Court are decidedly in favour of the clause, and think its enactment would be expedient and advantageous. When the Bill was passing through the House of Commons the Attorney General stated, in reply to a Question, that the Government supported this clause. I trust, my Lords, that you will, therefore, refuse to agree to the Amendment, but will pass the clause in its entirety.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that at first sight the clause had appeared to him a reasonable one; but, on examination, he found that it was subversive of the principle on which the Divorce Court had hitherto proceeded. If the clause was allowed to stand part
  190
  of the Bill, in a case in which there was no divorce or no judicial separation—in which the Court pronounced no sentence either of divorce or separation—and in which the parties were to live together, or might live together if they pleased, the Court was to be at liberty to order the husband to make provision for the wife, either by gross sum or annual allowance. He thought their Lordships should not agree to the clause, and hoped the noble Lord would not press it.
  LORD BLACKBURNpointed out, that a wife who committed adultery might be left to starve by a husband who himself was guilty of adultery, and who might even have driven his wife to guilt, and therefore failed to obtain a divorce; whilst a husband who, on the evidence, did not appear to be blameable, and therefore obtained a divorce from a wife who appeared to be without excuse, was obliged to support her. This was a principal cause of collusion. He thought this should not be permitted to continue. He trusted their Lordships would be influenced by the opinion of the President of the Divorce Court, and would allow the power proposed by the clause to be given to the Court.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that if the general law of the land, which deprived a guilty wife of her claim to maintenance by her husband was wrong, it ought to be amended by a legislative enactment; but the right of an adulterous wife to a maintenance from her husband ought not to depend on the circumstance that a suit had been instituted against her. It seemed to him that the effect of this clause would be to introduce two extraordinary anomalies. In the first place, it would give an exceptional advantage to a woman who was unsuccessful in her suit; and next, it would enable the Judge to do something incidentally in favour of the one party and against the other, when, upon the case which alone brought the parties within his jurisdiction, he could make no decree. He thought the clause should not be allowed to stand part of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 4 (Power given by 22 and 23 Vict. c. 61, s. 5, extended to cases where no children of marriage) agreed to.
  LORD PENZANCEmoved, to insert after Clause 4. the following clause:—
  "If a husband shall be convicted summarily or otherwise of an aggravated assault within the meaning of the statute twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth Victoria, chapter one hundred, section forty-three, upon his wife, the court or magistrate before whom he shall be so convicted may, if satisfied that the future safety of the wife is in peril, order that the wife shall be no longer bound to cohabit with her husband; and such order shall have the force and effect in all respects of a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty; and such order may further provide,
  "1. That the husband shall pay to the board of guardians for the parish or union in which he shall reside at the time of the said conviction, such weekly sum as the court or magistrate may consider to be in accordance with his means, and with any means which the wife may have, for the support of his wife; and the board of guardians shall from time to time pay the money so received by them to the wife, and they shall have the like remedies against the husband for the recovery of such weekly sums, or any part thereof, as they would have against him if he had deserted his wife, and she had become chargeable on the parish or union, for any sums spent by them in maintaining her; and the court or magistrate by whom any such order for payment of money shall be made, shall have power from time to time to vary the same on the application of either the husband or the wife, upon proof that the means of the husband or wife have been altered in amount since the original order or any subsequent order varying it shall have been made.
  "2. That the legal custody of any children of the marriage under the age of ten years shall be given to the wife.
  "Provided always, that no order for payment of money by the husband, or for the custody of children by the wife, shall be made in favour of a wife who shall be proved to have committed adultery; and provided also, that all orders made under this section shall be subject to appeal to the High Court of Justice."
  The noble and learned Lord said, he would not refer to the sensational cases of cruelty which were of almost daily occurrence in order to show the necessity of the case—were he disposed to do so, he could produce a long list of them—some of them of a very black character. He thought the knowledge that the wife had an immediate and cheap remedy in case of cruelty would have a very deterrent effect upon brutal husbands.
  LORD SUDELEYexpressed his readiness to accept the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not sure that the machinery of the portion of the clause referring to the recovery of money by the Boards of Guardians was quite satisfactory. He doubted whether Guardians were the best bodies
  192
  to receive and pay over the moneys payable under the order of the magistrate.
  LORD PENZANCEwas willing to amend it, if it could be amended, at a future stage.
  Amendment made; Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 55.)

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord President.)

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONpresented a Bill, the object of which was, first of all, to revise endowments in Scotland; and, secondly, to assist in the promotion of higher education in that country. England had already had the benefits of legislation in that direction. Under that legislation the Endowed Schools Commission, appointed many years ago, made their inquiries and Reports, and on those Reports the Commissioners were entrusted with framing schemes for dealing with endowments throughout the country. As their Lordships were aware, the Endowed Schools Commission was now merged in the Charity Commission. He thought it would be admitted that the labours of the Commissioners had been satisfactory. He would not say they had given universal satisfaction; but, on the whole, the result had been satisfactory. He was the more able to bear testimony to that, because a great many of their schemes had come before him in his official capacity, and because they found very few of the schemes laid before Parliament by the Commissioners had been schemes upon which Parliament had been asked to express a hostile opinion. Also, he did not think it would be honest of him, in the position he held, if he did not bear testimony to the great zeal with which not only the present Commissioners, but those had preceded them, had applied themselves to their duties and endeavoured to do justice in the cases—many of which were very complicated—which had been brought before them. It was because this system had been found satisfactory in England that it was now proposed that some similar

  193
  arrangement should be extended to Scotland. The endowments in Scotland to which he referred were, no doubt, not so large as those in England; still they were of very great importance, and it was desirable to provide for Scotland some system by which those endowments should be made available for useful purposes in connection with education, and it was for this purpose that the Bill had been brought forward. The object of the Bill was both to revise the endowments and to assist in obtaining a higher class of education. There were two points as to which he would like to call attention. The first was as to the effects of recent legislation, and the second as to the nature of the endowments with which they proposed to deal. With regard to recent legislation, the Trustees of Endowments in Scotland had themselves, from time to time, pressed the Government of the day to take some action on the subject. So much so, that in 1869, a temporary Act of Parliament was passed which gave the Government power to issue to the Trustees a Provisional Order, and the Sheriff was to report upon the subjects with which it was desired to deal. Under the provisions of that Act, the Trustees of two institutions—the one the Merchant Company of Edinburgh with an income of something like £15,000 a-year, and the other the Bathgate Charity—at once applied to avail themselves of the powers given, by the Act. The way in which the Trustees carried out the powers given them proved, he believed, to be advantageous to the institutions with which they were connected. The result, in fact, seemed likely to produce so much benefit, that various bodies prepared to apply to Parliament to be allowed to make use of the powers of that Act. But the Law Officers of the day interposed, and said that the powers sought to be obtained were ultra vires; and the consequence was that in 1872 an attempt was made to give the Trustees the powers necessary to deal with the Trusts with which they were bound up. The Bill of 1872, however, did not pass into law. He had forgotten whether it passed through either House of Parliament—it certainly did not go through both. The result was that a Royal Commission was appointed, which made a Report in 1875. The Report showed that there was a great necessity for some amendment in the present law. The Commission
  194
  represented all shades of opinion, political and religious—and as they came to an unanimous conclusion in their Report, he thought their Lordships, also, might safely come to the same conclusion, and that something ought to be done in the matter of these endowments. Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, he desired to point out the nature and amount of some of the Trusts, as set forth in the Report of the Commission. He did not intend to deal with the University endowments, because they were, in the first place, comparatively small; he would rather confine himself to the other endowments in Scotland, which, in the aggregate, amounted to £174,000. These were charitable, educational, and mixed endowments. Some of the charitable endowments were for the sick and aged; some of the educational endowments were not for any particular institutions, while others were appropriated to particular schools, and of the mixed some were for both elementary and secondary education. A great portion of the endowments was applied, as the law at present stood, to the elementary schools, which schools were largely supported out of the rates. The other endowments under the 46th section of the Education Act of 1872 were dealt with by the school boards, and the measure to which he would ask their Lordships to give a first reading only extended the principle of the Act of 1872 to the other endowments now in existence. With regard to the previous administration of those foundations in Scotland, the Report of the Commissioners showed that there had been no abuse on the part of those connected with these endowments. There had been no maladministration of the endowments, so far as they were able to ascertain, and he thought they might assume that there had been no real maladministration; but there had been a want of power on the part of the Trustees to make alterations where alterations were required, and therefore it was necessary that some steps should be taken to give more power to Trustees. There was one system about which there seemed to be no difference of opinion as regarded Scotland—there seemed to be a unanimity of opinion as regarded the hospital system. A very eminent man, Lord Justice General Inglis, said—
  "They thought that the hospital system, as it has been called, had not been productive of any

  195
  good, but rather of evil; and, at all events, they were clearly of opinion that, even supposing it to be useful in itself, there were already more than enough of such institutions in Edinburgh, and that it was not desirable to add to them. But they objected to the system upon principle."
  In the same Report, Mr. Lyon Playfair said—
  "When I formerly looked closely into the system, I found a very strong opinion against the hospital system, both as regards the parents who sent their children and the children who were sent. My opinion was that the first thing was to break up what is called the monastic system, by which the children were taken away from their parents and immured in these hospitals; because that produced a paralyzing effect on the children and a pauperizing effect on the parents."
  It might be that the evils of the hospital system were more felt in Scotland than in England. And, on another point in connection with the hospital system, Mr. Jolly, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and formerly Teacher in George Watson's Hospital, in his evidence, said—
  "The intellectual evils (of hospital life) are dulness in perception and understanding, and a peculiar intellectual inertness and heaviness. Everyone teaching in an hospital feels this very much. You cannot get the boys to work hard, though you appeal to them; and you have to put more energy into the teaching of an hospital class than any other. You have to waste yourself to inspire them with vis, and you get very little return. You have to work much harder to produce any result than with another set of boys. This intellectual dulness also manifests itself in a difficulty of interesting them and rousing them to mental effort. It also exhibits itself in a lower power of attention and a less strength of memory than in the case of out-door boys. On revisal, you are astonished how little they have retained. Intellectual power is also smaller than it would be on another system, and intellectual eminence in hospital boys is very rare. The system also produces a want of intellectual self-reliance and self-sustained intellectual effort."
  Thus, they had the opinions of Lord Justice General Inglis, of Mr. Lyon Play-fair, and Mr. Jolly, that this was a system which ought to be altered and amended. Another point had been touched upon by the Commission, and that was the constitution of the managing bodies of these institutions. Some objections were taken to the managing bodies on the ground that they were too bulky, others objected that they were too narrow, and others that they were apt to be too fluctuating, and that they gave room for jealousies of all kinds,
  196
  political and religious. The sums paid for education in Scotland were very large, and he thought the elementary schools received a greater share of the educational endowments than the higher schools. He would read to their Lordships that part of the Report which referred to this question—
  "With regard to endowments for higher instruction—1. Inasmuch as provision has been made by law for elementary, but not for secondary, schools, we recommend that, where the reasonable objects of any foundation can be attained without expending the whole revenue, the surplus should be applied to promote higher instruction in the vicinity of the foundation, either by directly aiding secondary schools, such as the higher-class public schools scheduled in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, or by the establishment of bursaries to be held at such schools, or by improving the higher instruction in public schools in the country districts."
  That was the recommendation of the Commission, and the Bill intended very much to carry out the recommendation of the Commission, subject to certain supervision of the Scotch Education Committee of the Privy Council. The mention of the name of the Scotch Education Committee reminded him of a letter he saw some days ago written to The Scotsman newspaper by a gentleman with whom he had the honour of being acquainted. This gentleman—Mr. Milne-Home—wrote a letter on the subject of the Education Board for Edinburgh, with which he need not trouble their Lordships. He also wrote a long letter to The Scotsman; but the only paragraph with which he would trouble them took exception to the composition of the Scotch Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Milne-Home's objection to that Board was that there was no Scotchman on it; and he said that the names of the Members of it were the Earl of Beacons-field, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Viscount Sandon; and yet he said that amongst these there was no Scotchman, or anyone who had any time or opportunity of knowing anything whatever about the wants and peculiarities of the Scotch! Now, he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) did not wish to put himself too prominently before their Lordships; but he confessed he read that statement twice—for, when he first read it, he thought that his eyes had deceived him, because if there was one thing more than another of which he was proud, it

  197
  was his connection with Scotland, and he was not ashamed to say so; he hoped and fancied that he had taken great interest in the welfare of Scotland, that he was tolerably conversant with the habits and wants and peculiarities of the people from the highest to the lowest. Therefore, although he did not wish to put himself too prominently before their Lordships, he thought they would agree that Mr. Milne-Home was greatly in error when he said there was no Scotch person on this Committee. Mr. Milne-Home also forgot that Lord Gordon, the late Lord Advocate, was a Member of the Committee of Council on Education, and still remained so; and that since that time the present Lord Advocate had become a Member of the Board, and been made a Privy Councillor. In addition to himself, in addition to Lord Gordon and the present Lord Advocate, there was the very able Secretary of the Committee, Sir Francis Sandford, who might be claimed as a Scotchman, since he had been brought up and educated at the Glasgow University, where his father was one of the ablest Professors, until he took a distinguished position at Baliol College, Oxford. Therefore, he said, this Board was peculiarly Scotch; but, to leave that which seemed rather to be a personal matter, he desired to briefly point out what they proposed to do in this Bill. First of all, they gave to the Governing Body of these institutions the power to resolve that they would petition the Secretary of State for a Provisional Order, setting forth the scheme for the better government of the institution which they desired to have sanctioned. The Petition would be published in The Edinburgh Gazette, and an inquiry would be ordered to be instituted by a body of Commissioners to be formed to that end, with power to take evidence on oath. The Secretary of State might, if he thought fit, issue a Provisional Order in accordance with the prayer of the Governing Body. Power was given to two or more Governing Bodies to combine for the purpose of asking the Secretary of State for a Provisional Order. Governing Bodies were also empowered to apply to transfer their endowments to any other endowed institution or any school board. There was an important provision, which had for its object the promotion of a higher class of education in the schools throughout
  198
  Scotland, especially in those parts of Scotland where there were no higher class schools; and it would assist the Scotch Education Department in administering the public grant to the elementary schools, so as to promote the higher education in those districts where there were no higher class schools. The clause on this subject was this—
  "The Commissioners shall submit for the consideration of the Scotch Educational Department the conditions according to which, in their opinion, the Parliamentary grant for public education in Scotland may he most advantageously distributed for the purpose of promoting education in the higher branches of knowledge in public and in State-aided schools, especially in those districts in which there are no high class public schools: Provided always that the duty of determining from time to time the rates and condition according to which the said grants may be given, and of framing and from time to time revising the minutes containing the same, shall be upon the Scotch Education Department."
  That was the proposal which Her Majesty's Government made in the Bill, and which they thought would be the means of benefiting and improving higher class education, especially in those districts where it was not possible to have such schools. The only other point with which he need trouble their Lordships was the constitution of the Commission which they proposed should sit in Edinburgh, and there transact their business. The Government thought there was a great disadvantage attending a very large Commission, and there were probable disadvantages attending a very small Commission. They, therefore, proposed that Her Majesty should be recommended to appoint a Commission consisting of eight persons. One to be a Principal or Professor of one of the Universities of Scotland; another to be a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland; another to be the Sheriff of a county; another the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, or the Provost of Glasgow, or Aberdeen or Dundee; another the Convener of the Commissioners of Supply of a county in Scotland; and, of the three remaining Commissioners, one should be the Chairman of the Commission, and the Chairman and other two members should be paid. Her Majesty's Government trusted that through the operation of this Bill, fresh utility would be infused into these endowments, and they believed that secondary schools would secure some

  199
  much-needed resources; while, at the same time, they believed all reasonable demands for the recognition of the higher education in elementary schools would be fully discussed.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Endowed Schools and Hospitals and other Endowed Institutions in Scotland, and for other purposes—Presented (The LORD PRESIDENT).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was glad to find that Her Majesty's Government were attempting, to deal with this matter, to which public attention in Scotland had long been directed. The subject was beset with many difficulties which could only be removed by legislation. He desired to point out one important difference which the noble Duke made with respect to England and Scotland. As he understood it, these Commissioners had no power to deal with these Governing Bodies unless the bodies themselves petitioned to be dealt with—by which he apprehended in England the Commissioners took the initiative, and not the bodies to be reformed. He thought it a great compliment to Scotland that the noble Duke believed that these bodies would have sufficient public spirit to come forward to be reformed, and that the initiative might be fairly trusted in their hands; but he confessed he doubted the expediency of appointing this large body of Commissioners if they were not to have the power of taking the initiative.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthought the appointment of a gentleman who was not a Member of the Government to a seat on the Education Board might be an inconvenient precedent.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in reply to the observations of the noble Duke, said, the Governing Bodies did actually apply in great numbers in 1869 to have their cases considered; but the Law Officers of the Crown held that they could not be dealt with under the Act then in force. He had no doubt that, when the Commissioners were appointed, the Governing Bodies would send in applications and place themselves under the provisions of the present Bill. With regard to the remark of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) he would observe that the late Lord Advocate was the
  200
  only Member of the Committee of Council on Education who was not a Member of the Government. When once the Committee was nominated, the original Members remained upon it until a fresh Committee was appointed.
  Bill read 1a; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No. 56.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.