Lords Sitting of 6 July 1880

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Local Government Provisional Orders (Eastbourne, &c.)*(121).
Second Reading —Union Assessment Committee (Single Parishes) (104); Representation of the People (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment (103); Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny, &c.)*(108); Local Government Provisional Orders (Alnwick Union, &c.) *(109); Local Government Provisional Orders (Amersham Union, &c.)*(110); County Bridges* (113); Isle of Man (Loans)*(107).
Committee —Report —Judicial Faetors(Scotland)* (98); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)*(102).
Third Reading —General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry)*(99), and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FURNESS RAILWAY CERTIFICATE, 1880.

    RESOLUTION.
    THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY,in rising to move—
    "That the draft certificate of the Board of Trade (laid before the House on the 25th of May last) ought not to he made,"
    said, that the question had reference to the making of a railway into the town of Whitehaven, and ought not to be disposed of by a Certificate of the Board
    1730
    of Trade, but should be referred to a Select Committee. The Whitehaven Trustees could then be heard on the engineering features of the proposed line, to which they had objections.
    Moved to resolve, That the certificate of the Board of Trade, authorising the Furness Railway Company to construct a railway in the township of Preston Quarter and parish of St. Bees in the county of Cumberland (a draft of which was laid before the House on the 25th of May last), ought not to be made.—(The Marquess of Huntlg.)
    LORD SUDELEYsaid, the Resolution moved by the noble Marquess to set aside the Certificate of the Board of Trade, after it had lain on the Table for the whole period of six weeks, was one of a most unusual character, and certainly ought not to be carried, unless there were very strong reasons indeed to justify such a course. He ventured to think that there the noble Marquess had failed to show any substantial ground, and hoped to be able to show that the Petition had been presented under a misconception of the real facts of the case. The certificate complained of was made by the Board of Trade under the Railways Construction Facilities Act, 1844, to authorize the Furness Railway Company to construct a short line of railway near Whitehaven. By that Act the draft must lie upon the Table of both Houses for six weeks before the Board of Trade could grant the Certificate. The draft was so laid on the Table on the 25th May, so that the Resolution before the House was being brought forward on the very last day, which of itself was a most unusual course. In the Petition there were three allegations—First, that the Petitioners, being proprietors of railways, the Board of Trade should have granted a Provisional Certificate instead of a Draft Certificate, the difference being that a Provisional Certificate had to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament; whereas a Draft Certificate, after being six weeks before the House, had the force of law. The Petitioners were, however, quite mistaken in their first allegation, as although under the Act of 1870 the Board of Trade grant a Provisional Certificate when a Railway Company oppose the scheme, in the present instance the Petitioners were not Railway Companies within the meaning of the Act; so that the Board of Trade had no option, and

    1731
    could not, therefore, grant a Provisional Certificate. The second allegation, that no proper investigation had been made into the merits of the scheme, seemed to be the one that the noble Marquess principally relied upon. The facts were, however, quite the reverse. Not only had Colonel Yolland, the Inspector, held a careful inquiry into the matter on the spot, but the authorities of the Board of Trade had also themselves thoroughly investigated into the merits of the case, so much so, that several alterations had been made to meet the views of the Petitioners, and the proposed railway was made to go under the road instead of over it. Then came the third allegation, which was that, the plan having been altered, the consent of the Petitioners, as landowners, ought to have been obtained. The answer to this was very simple. In the first place, the alteration had been made to meet the views of the Petitioners themselves; and, secondly, the Petitioners were not landowners within the meaning of the Act, but simply authorities having control over the road affected. These reasons seemed to him sufficient to warrant their Lordships declining to agree to the Resolution. But there was another fact which he could not help referring to— namely, that only a few hours previously a similar Motion had been made in "another place," and had been at once withdrawn, when the true state of the ease had been stated. On the very last day that the Certificate had to be on their Lordships' Table, he thought the Resolution almost without precedent. As he knew the noble Marquess only moved the Resolution on public grounds, he hoped he had stated sufficient to induce him to withdraw his opposition.
    On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

  UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (SINGLE PARISHES) BILL.
  (The Lord Strafford.)
  (NO. 104.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill was a very short one, and had encountered no opposition in its passage through the House of Commons. Its object was to enable the Local Government Board, upon application from the
  1732
  Guardians of what were called "single parishes," to apply to them the provisions of the Union Assessment Committee Act (passed in 1862) in the same way as they applied it to Unions under Local Acts and to Gilbert's Incorporations. The Act of 1862 was a great improvement upon the Parochial Assessment Act of 1836, as, instead of allowing the overseers, very often ignorant and illiterate men, to make the rates, these duties were transferred to the Guardians, who appointed a competent body, called an assessment committee, to carry out that necessary work. This change had worked well; but unfortunately single parishes, not in union, had not been able to avail themselves of its provisions, and this Bill, which was not, however, compulsory, but optional, would permit them to be brought, with the assent of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of the Act of 1862. The following was a list of parishes under separate Boards of Guardians; and he thought it would be admitted that in these cases it would be better that the assessment of property for the purposes of rates should be in the hands of an assessment committee rather than in the hands of overseers. Many of these localities were large and important places — namely, Whittlesea, Alston, East Stone house, Stoke Damerel, Barrow-in-Furness, Liverpool, Manchester, Toxteth Park, Great Yarmouth, Alver-stoke, Stoke-upon-Trent, Brighton, Birmingham, and Saddleworth. Many of those localities had expressed themselves as favourable to the principle of this measure; and it was for that reason that, on behalf of the Local Government Board, he now moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—(The Viscount Enfield.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 103.)
(The Earl of Airlie.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1868) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 103.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time,

  1733
  said that it affected only the people of Scotland, and its object was extend to persons entitled to vote in counties those rights which had long been enjoyed by voters of burghs in cases where they happened to have left their houses furnished for a portion of the year. At present the occupiers of houses in counties who let their houses furnished for any portion of the year were not able to vote; and there appeared to have been great complaints upon the subject, and public attention had been aroused in consequence of the numerous disqualifications of voters that had taken place recently. It was therefore proposed that in future every man should be entitled to be registered, and to vote under the 6th section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, notwithstanding that during a part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months he may have let his premises as a furnished house to some other person.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT — THE KIRKHAM GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WINMARLEIGH,in calling attention to the scheme for the future regulation of the Grammar School at Kirkham, said, that certain Petitioners who had petitioned their Lordships' House objected to the scheme on the ground that it did not observe the section applicable to such cases, and which provided that, on the framing of schemes for endowed schools, regard was to be had to the interests of all parties concerned. There were about 100 boys in the Kirkham Grammar School. The object of the founders was free education; and of those 100 boys 80 hitherto received their education under the foundation free of charge. By the new regulation a charge of not less than £4 and not more than £8 a-year would be made from last month for each boy. The change was very sudden, and it would press hardly on the poorer parents in the parish. No doubt, it would be said, the imposition of the charge was in accordance with what was being done throughout the country generally in
  1734
  respect of such schools; but he thought that more regard should be had to the intention of the founder than had been shown in this case. It could scarcely be said that the Charity Commissioners could not find funds for free education in the school. The foundation amounted in value to between £900 and £1,000. The salaries paid to masters were—to the head master, £250; to the second, £170; to the third, £120; and to the assistant to the head master, £120. Besides these sums, £15 a-year was paid to the French master, who had fees also. At a time when the Universities were being reformed, and efforts being made to improve the education of the country, it was very inadvisable to largely curtail the privileges offered by the free grammar schools. What the Petitioners asked for in this case had been done in the case of the Rugby Grammar School; and he hoped their representations would receive the favourable consideration of the Education Department.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that, as the scheme for the Kirkham Grammar School was drawn up when he was at the head of the Education Department, he could say that those who drew it up had endeavoured to consider the interests of all parties. As to what had been done at Rugby, he might observe that he did not think it was done under the same Endowed Schools Act as that under which the Kirkham scheme was framed. Both political Parties, when in power at the Education Department, had acted on the principle that the education in the endowed grammar schools ought not to be free. A sum of £4 a-year was only about 18 d. a-week, for which a boy got a good commercial education. Those who could not afford to pay such a sum ought not to go to a grammar school, but to a primary school. At Kirkham School £260 a-year was to be given for out scholarships, and two sums of £100 each for scholarships in the school itself. What his noble Friend wanted to have done would not be effected in the way he seemed to think. The scheme, or any paragraph in it, might be rejected; but that would not give free education, and words could not be added to the scheme.
  EARL SPENCERconcurred in what had been stated by his noble Friend the late Lord President of the Council. He might add that children who had been

  1735
  for three years in a primary school at Kirkham might obtain one of the scholarships at the grammar school, and in that way obtain a free education. He could not hold out any hope that the scheme would be changed; it would be impossible to amend the scheme without wholly altering its character. He saw no objection, however, to let the matter go before the Charity Commissioners; and, if they thought fit, they might alter the scheme as they had power to do. He had not been able to hold any communication with the Commissioners upon the subject; but if his noble Friend would do so, he might possibly be able to obtain an extension of the time in regard to the commencement of the scheme.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE, 1880—THE FOURTH SCHEDULE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD NORTON,on rising to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether almost all of the Inspectors of the Education Department had not in their last Reports deprecated the grants to Elementary Schools for results in examination on specific subjects in the Fourth Schedule, as leading to bad secondary instruction and to the neglect of the primary, and as checking a better provision of secondary education to which scholarships might be given to clever children of the working classes; and whether the Reports of the present year, not yet published, did not express the same view even more strongly; and whether he will lay on the Table an extract from each Inspector's Report of any remarks on the specific subjects? said, he only wished to add that he thought it should be made public that the Inspectors of the Education Department took the view which their Lordships by a large majority took about a week ago, when he moved an Address upon the subject. He submitted that the opinion of the Inspectors was of much greater weight than that of the school boards upon this subject, who were notoriously wishing to keep children at their schools to the age of 18—that was, to have the secondary education of the country, how ever taught, in their hands, even though such teaching might stand in the way of better education, both primary and secondary. The opinion of the Inspectors was also of more importance than that of school managers, who
  1736
  were afraid to lose the 4s. grants attached to examinations in the Fourth Schedule; though he would make up that loss by another grant, beyond that for reading, for understanding what was read. The Address for excluding attempts at studying sciences and foreign languages from elementary instruction was taken by some for a retrograde step in education, instead of what it really was, an emancipation from mischievous confusion of education. The distinction of secondary and special from primary and general education was recognized everywhere but in our Code. In Scotland both were carried on in the same school —but kept distinct as to age, subject, and rate of payment—not interfering the one with the other. The distinction was recognized in the schools of all European countries; and, though Mr. Munuella had stated in the other House that elementary education was carried higher in other countries than in this, he could refer to the evidence given before the Endowed Schools Commissioners in 1868 to prove the reverse of that statement. The elementary course did not in any country include as much as our class subjects, nor have anything like our Fourth Schedule of scientific study in it. In the extracts from Inspectors' Reports, which he had circulated, the Fourth Schedule was shown to be not only mischievously in the way of primary education, but worthless as secondary. Such instruction was described as dry and technical, and such as might be expected from teachers who had got it up from meagre text-books. He had just seen the Report of a London Board School, Bermondsey, in which it was said that far too much was sacrificed to these specific subjects, which showed only a moderate result. The National Society and the School Managers' Association had petitioned that day, strongly taking the view of the late Address; and he had no doubt that more and more such Petitions would come in as the point became understood. As he understood the Lord President to say that though he would not promise to expunge this Fourth Schedule and make way for better secondary education, which would then be abundantly opened to all classes, this year, yet he left himself free to deal with the entire Code next year, he was content to wait till the strong opinions of his Inspectors, and the support which would

  1737
  come from all sides throughout the country, should confirm him in the conclusion at which he could not but think he had already arrived. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he had undertaken to inquire into the whole of this subject before the next Session of Parliament; and while he did not deprecate any expression of opinion on it that evening, he was exceedingly glad to hear the noble Lord state that it was not his intention to again bring it forward this Session. While wishing to guard himself against being led into a debate on the present occasion, he wished, in consequence of something said by the noble Lord, to say that he had the highest respect for the views of the experienced and distinguished gentlemen who acted as Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools. He thought their opinions on this subject were of great weight; but he still maintained that the opinions of the school boards on it were also entitled to high consideration. He was glad to see that the noble Lord had revised his Question by inserting before "all of the Inspectors" the important word "almost." There were some 126 Inspectors; but only about 27 of them reported each year. It was quite true that many of the Inspectors complained of the manner in which children answered questions on primary education; but that was a very different thing from recommending that the Fourth Schedule be expunged. Some Inspectors advocated certain special subjects, others advocated others; it was, therefore, unfair to say that, as a body, they wished to have special subjects wholly done away with. The synopsis of the opinions of School Inspectors, which the noble Lord opposite had referred to, was so inaccurate that he could not refrain from correcting it in one or two particulars. Inspector Arnold was represented as desiring the exclusion from Schedule IV. of, among other subjects, Latin and French. Now, as to these, what did Mr. Arnold say?—
  "Everyone is agreed as to the exceptional position of Latin among the languages for our study. Our schoolboy of 13 will do little with his rudiments of Latin unless he carries on his education beyond the scope of our elementary schools and their programmes. But if he does carry it beyond that scope, Latin is almost a necessity for him. By allowing Latin
  1738
  as a special subject for a certain number of scholars in our elementary schools we are but recognizing that necessity."
  Mr. Arnold continued:—
  "French, too, has a special claim. To know the rudiments of French has a commercial value…Here is a reason for admitting French to our list of extra subjects."
  Mr. Fitch's views, again, were not accurately represented, owing to the omission of a qualifying passage. Mr. Fitch said:—
  "The claims of science, English literature) physical geography, domestic economy, and the other specific subjects, appear to me to be much higher than Latin, French, or German. For every one of these can be carried to a point, even before the age of 13, far enough to possess real value, and what is still more important, every one of them is so connected with the rest of the course that it can be begun and taught in a rudimentary way even in the lowest classes."
  He was sorry to detain their Lordships; but he felt bound to point out the inaccuracies which he had mentioned, and which did not stand alone. It seemed to him that to quote isolated passages from Reports without the qualification of the context was scarcely fair. As to the Fourth Schedule, no doubt a considerable difference of opinion existed. In reference to the last part of the Question, the Reports this year certainly continued to be more unfavourable to these subjects; but they all pointed to one thing—that children should be placed in a higher standard before they were allowed to take these special subjects. This was a matter which he had said before he would take into account and consider, and he would most carefully go into the subject during the Recess; and it would be a matter of great gratification to him if he could arrive at a solution of the difficulty which would meet with the general concurrence of their Lordships.
  EARL NELSONwished to take that opportunity of correcting an erroneous impression which appeared to exist out-of-doors, that those noble Lords who voted in favour of the Address to the Crown, the other night, were desirous of stopping the education of the children of the people. He, for one, had always been most anxious that the scholars of elementary schools should have an opportunity of rising to secondary education, and that view was not in-

  1739
  consistent with disapproval of the Fourth Schedule. A few days ago he had the honour to preside at a meeting of the Council of the General Association of Church School Managers and Teachers; and while the meeting was desirous of promoting the education of the children of the elementary schools, it was unanimously of opinion, and had drawn up a Petition to that effect, that at present the interests of those children were really injured by the Fourth Schedule. What they desired to see was facilities afforded to the children of elementary schools for continuing their education in secondary schools.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl opposite (Earl Nelson) has made the explanation he has now given, because it is undoubtedly true that a general impression prevails out-of-doors that the vote of this House the other night was a"re-actionary"vote—a vote in contradistinction to and calculated to arrest the progress of education. I am convinced that the majority of those Peers who voted on that occasion have no wish to lower the standard of education. The fault was their own, both from their speeches and their votes; and I am, I confess, very much puzzled to understand how the noble Duke could have concurred in a vote, not for the Amendment of the Fourth Schedule, not for the preservation of those modifications of it which he himself initiated, and for which there is much to be said—I am puzzled to make out how he could have voted in favour of striking out the whole of the Fourth Schedule altogether. The allusion of the noble Earl (Earl Nelson) has also convinced me that the views I hold on the subject have been misunderstood, and I am confirmed in that by the fact that the noble Earl on the Bench below me (Earl Fortescue), who voted on that side the other night, has sent me a pamphlet on the subject, with almost every word of which I find I concur. There were two distinct propositions in that pamphlet, and one is that the middle-class and secondary education shall not be paid for out of the rates. In that opinion I entirely concur. I hold it as strongly as any noble Lord on the other side of the House that we should, as far as possible, not provide for secondary or what is called middle-class education out of the rates, which
  1740
  are intended for primary education; but then, my Lords, there was a second proposition which was entirely distinct, and that was that in primary schools you should not teach any elements except the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic, a wholly separate proposition, and from that I wholly dissent. I hold that there are many subjects of which you can teach the elements in primary schools. That is a totally different proposition from the others to which I have referred. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite will say, how do you distinguish between secondary or middle-class education and primary education? There are but two ways of distinguishing between these two subjects, and they are by definition as to age, and also by limitation of expense. The attempt to separate the two kinds of education by exclusion of particular subjects is to my mind wholly futile and erroneous, because there is no subject of which you cannot reach the elements, and any distinction breaks down entirely if you follow the principle laid down by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), because I believe he is the author of the paragraph in the Education Code which introduces class subjects. The definition of class subjects is this — subjects that can be taught by means of reading lessons. Now, what can be taught by means of reading lessons, or what is there that cannot be taught by means of reading? Hardly any. To refer to what I have already said on the subject of education in Scotland— and I can say this, that in the course of reading lessons given in that country all sorts of subjects are taught to the children with great success—I shall never forget, about 20 years ago, going into a little school in one of the Western Highlands of Scotland. It was a school which externally would have raised the horror of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. It would not have suited any of the rules laid down by him. It was what was called a dry stone building, with a thatched roof and a mud floor. On going into the school I found in it a number of children, extremely poor, reading a lesson with extraordinary intelligence of expression. One of the first subjects given to the children to read me was a description of how metallic ores were treated before the smelt-

  1741
  ing process. The noble Lord opposite will say, "How extremely absurd to teach metallurgy to poor children in a small school of that kind." Well, my Lords, there was a little boy not more than 10 years old who read an extract describing how lead ore was treated. The description said that it was pounded and subjected to a current of running water in order to free it from extraneous matters. My Lords, I thought it was impossible that a poor child who was hardly clothed could have understood the meaning of such a word as "extraneous." I thought it was a mere "cram," and that he would be unable to answer any other question about this elaborate metallurgical process; and, wishing to test him, I asked him—"Now my boy, what is the meaning of 'extraneous?'" He looked at me in the greatest surprise and astonished that I did not know, and at once answered the question by saying—"Not belonging to it." Now, my Lords, I will put that question—"What is the meaning of the word 'extraneous?'" to many highly cultivated persons, and nine out of 10, however highly cultivated they may be, will fail to give me as clear and complete an answer as that little child. It shows what can be elicited from children when extracts from various subjects, however scientific, are intelligently taught; and I came to the conclusion, looking at the intelligence manifested by the children in their reading lessons, that a great deal of the intelligence was derived from the fact that they are bilingual, the language used at the schools being English, and that used at their homes being Gaelic, and that the attempt to translate their ideas from one to the other was in itself a process which brought out the highest intellectual powers. My Lords, I cannot help thinking that it is a great advantage to teach in primary schools the elements of French and Latin. In Scotland they teach all the children the elements of Latin and of French on payment of a small fee; and if it were possible to teach the children in the primary schools in this country the elements of French and Latin, and so compel them to translate their ideas from one language to another, I am convinced that you will introduce into the schools a most powerful element for bringing out the intelligence of the children. I am confirmed in this
  1742
  view by some observations of the Welsh Inspectors; and I may say here at once, on seeing the Notice of the noble Lord opposite, I referred to the Reports in your Lordships' Library, and on going through them I at once ascertained the extreme inaccuracy of the extracts quoted by the noble Lord (Lord Norton). I do not doubt but that he was perfectly honest in his intention; but he read these Reports with one idea in his mind, and, like every other man who reads through long documents with a fixed intention, he saw nothing but that which supported his own view. In his remarks he has quoted a passage from Mr. Arnold's Report; but Mr. Arnold distinctly says that he is in favour of introducing the elements both of Latin and French into elementary schools. Now, my Lords, going to another part of the country, where the children are also bi-lingual, I find there is great inducement offered in the new Code for the efficient teaching of extra subjects, thus giving great impetus to the work of education now attempted in all the schools of Wales, and which have been productive of the greatest improvement and in increasing the intelligence of the children in ordinary subjects. I have mentioned to your Lordships a case of the intelligence of children in Scotland, who by reading most of them could understand the science of metallurgy; but I venture to say you might have got extracts from a great many scientific writers of former times which would be equally intelligible to the ordinary children in the schools of the country. I was only reading the other day a subject which I certainly thought it would be impossible for children to understand in the elementary schools. I refer to the "Optics" of Sir Isaac Newton, and I found there a passage explaining the cause of the decay of human sight, and why it was that spectacles were useful to aged persons, described, as your Lordships can imagine, in magnificent English, and after reading it, I was perfectly convinced that you might even, by judicious extracts from the writings of our great writers, teach in our elementary schools the elements of most of the sciences. If the noble Earl can explain away the impression produced out-of-doors by the recent vote of the House, I think it will be a great advantage. The Lord President of the Council

  1743
  has promised that he will consider the subject in the Recess, and, no doubt, he will do so in the sincere desire to meet the views of the great majority of the House; but your Lordships must feel it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of a vote of either House of Parliament, to expunge from the Code a great variety of the teaching which for nine or ten years has been enjoyed by the working classes of the country. I do not think that the demands made by the working classes will be met by a few exhibitions being established here and there. I am convinced that your Lordships do not wish to lower the standard of education, but will be willing to leave with elementary teaching a great variety of subjects, in order that the parents of the scholars may select for themselves what subjects they would like their children to be examined upon.
  THE DUKE OF RICHHOND AND GORDONsaid, he should not have taken part in the discussion but for the remarks which had been made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). The Lord President of the Council had promisd that he would, during the Recess, take the subject into his consideration, with a view of meeting the views of the great majority of their Lordships. He sincerely hoped, however, that in doing so he would not call into his council the advice of the noble Duke.
  EARL SPENCER,interposing, said, he could not promise to carry out the views of the majority of the House; but simply that he would take care that the views of their Lordships were not left out of account.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, anyhow he hoped the advice of the noble Duke would not be called in, inasmuch as the noble Duke entirely differed from the views which a few nights before found favour with the great majority of the House. In the Act of 1872 a line was drawn which was omitted from the Act of 1870, and which rendered necessary the limitations of the Fourth Schedule which Her Majesty's present Advisers proposed should be struck out. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had been charged with wishing to expunge the Fourth Schedule from the Code. Why did he wish to do so? Because the Government had struck out the safeguard, without which
  1744
  the provisions could not be properly worked. The limitation of age was, for instance, struck out. That, he thought, ought not to have been done. The noble Duke some years ago was in favour of limits—
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: So I am now.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: But those limitations which were in the Code had been struck out by the Government. These were the reasons which induced him to vote as he did the other night; and if the matter were brought forward again he should give a similar vote, as he had not been convinced that he was wrong in the course which he took on that occasion. He would like to know from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), who was in some part responsible for the Education Act, whether it was right to extend this education all over the country without those safeguards which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) so much wished to obtain, because some years ago the noble Earl supported the revised Code, which only allowed the "three R's" to be taught.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETexpressed approval of the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, and said that he should be quite satisfied if village boys could be taught to read and to understand what they read.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he wished to clear himself of the charge of inconsistency which had been levelled against him. He had been asked whether he was not partly responsible for the revised Code of the "three R's." Well, it should be remembered that it was provided in connection with that Code that there should be a reduction in the grants to a school if the general teaching of the school was not of an intelligent character. Since the time when this provision was made a larger number of subjects had certainly been introduced into elementary schools, for which state of things no one was more responsible than the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon); and when the noble Duke talked of want of consistency he could say that he (Earl Granville) had been more consistent than he had himself, because, when the subject was first introduced by the noble Lord (Lord Norton), he had treated the arguments of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll)

  1745
  in the most contemptuous manner, and then, on the last occasion, suddenly-turned round, and instead of proposing to amend the Schedule by the introduction of safeguards, voted en bloc against it.
  VISCOUNT SHERBROOKEpointed out that it was one thing not to interfere with the subjects taught in a school, but another to give payment for those subjects. Some subjects which were read about in schools formed an excellent adjunct to a child's education; but when they were paid for the teachers were really being bribed to neglect their primary duty—namely, that of teaching the children intrusted to their care how to read. Whatever inducements might be offered by the State in its desire to extend the advantages of education, care should be taken not to encourage the teacher to avoid the dull and tedious, but most important, task of teaching his scholars to read well. Besides, the moment they directed the attention of teachers to these special subjects by making grants towards them they would find that the bright children would be pushed to pass the examinations to the disadvantage of the general education of the school. They would give a smattering of the higher subjects that would tend to raise the children in their own conceit, but would leave them absolutely without a knowledge of the rudiments of education. He repeated what he said the other evening, that it was impossible to find children in our elementary schools who could read well. It was of infinitely more importance that a boy should read well than he should be able to show off the little he had learnt in one of these subjects.
  LORD WINMARLEIGHconsidered that it was injurious to introduce special subjects into elementary schools, because it induced the teachers to neglect some pupils in order to advance others who showed more aptitude and intelligence in special subjects. While that was the case there ought to be some check that could be brought to bear upon them.
  EARL FORTESCUEprotested, on his own behalf and on that of his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Exeter), against the allegation that they were reactionary in this matter, or opposed to a further diffusion of education among the wage-earning class. He (Earl Fortescue) had again and again in his time dwelt
  1746
  upon the injustice done in not extending more widely exhibitions and scholarships in the endowed schools for their benefit. What they contended against was giving second-grade education in elementary schools. He felt, however, satisfied with the assurance given by his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had some personal knowledge of young men educated in some of their National Schools; and his experience differed greatly from that of his noble Friend (Viscount Sherbrooke). He ventured to say there were some who read and spelt as well as, and even better than, a large proportion of the sons of gentlemen of the same age, and who certainly spelt better than some sons of gentlemen with whom he had occasionally come in contact. He believed that the education given by the National Schools in reading, writing, and arithmetic, was at least as good as that received, in the same elementary subjects, by the higher classes. He entirely concurred in the principle enunciated by the noble Duke below the Gangway (the Duke of Somerset), who said that in this matter they ought to consider not only the children in the towns, but those in the rural districts also; only he would add the converse proposition, that they should consider not agricultural children only, but also those in the large manufacturing and other towns. They should consider not only one class, but children of all classes. If they did not bridge over the transition from primary to elementary education by giving such facilities as they could for learning something more, consistently with the main objects of the elementary system of education, they would, in his opinion, make a great mistake. It came to the knowledge of the Oxford University Commission, of which he (the Lord Chancellor) was a Member, through an influentially signed Petition from Manchester, that in cities and towns where the population was large, many of the poorest boys in the elementary schools were discovered to have quite sufficient ability to learn not only the elementary subjects, but to pass through the elementary schools into higher schools, and so to the Universities. Those boys could not have been sent, in the first instance, to a second-grade

  1747
  school; they could not pass to such a school without some help; and, if a hard and fast line were drawn between the teaching in the elementary school and that in the school above it, they would never have been qualified to go forward. That was a state of things of which he thought it would be a very great error indeed on the part of those who presided over the Educational Department not to take notice. He was perfectly convinced that if Inspectors did their duty there would be no difficulty whatever in reconciling such facilities as the Fourth Schedule gave for learning something more, with the highest efficiency in the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic; and, where the subjects in the Fourth Schedule were taught, with good results, he could see no reason for discouraging, or not encouraging them.
  LORD NORTONasked the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) if he would give the House extracts from the Inspectors' Reports both of last year and the present giving their opinion on the Fourth Schedule? The extracts which he had circulated were such as related to this subject as referred to in the margins, and were ipsissima verba from the Reports themselves, and he maintained that they were not qualified in substance by the contexts.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he must object to give extracts. The Reports would shortly be laid on the Table in the usual manner, and he hoped that they would be sufficient for the noble Lord.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— EJECTMENTS.
EARL SPENCERwished to explain, in reference to the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Annesley) last evening for Returns as to Civil Bill Ejectments, that he now proposed to make the Returns in two parts. The first would be the Return moved for by Mr. J. Low-ther in the House of Commons in the last Parliament, and which would be laid on their Lordships' Table in a few days; and the second would be the additional Returns down to the 30th of June last. He hoped that this would be satisfactory to the noble Earl, who he was sorry to see was not then pre-sent.
1748
Return, in tabular form, of the number of civil bill ejectments in each county, distinguishing ejectments on the title from those for non-payment of rent, tried and determined in each county in Ireland for each of the three years ending the 31st day of December 1879, exclusive of ejectments for premises situate in counties of cities, boroughs, and towns, under the Act 9th Geo. IV. chap. 82., or the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or any local Act:—Ejectments entered: On Title; Non-payment of Rent: Decrees granted: Decrees executed: Dismisses: Cases otherwise disposed of.
Ordered to be laid before the House.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.