Lords Sitting of 4 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Solway Fisheries (Scotland) * (144).
Second Reading—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension * (136); Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks) * (133).

UNITED STATES—ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can communicate any later intelligence in respect of the detestable attack on the President of the United States? If he has any, I am sure it would be gratifying to the House if he could give it.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am anxious to give all information in my power as to this most sad event, which has so deeply excited the sympathy of this country with the President and people of the United States—sympathy which, is every hour increasing in intensity, and is, at least, equal to that felt in the United Stales itself. I have been in communication with the American Minister here; but he does not appear to have any later intelligence than that which we ourselves received, dated midnight last night, to this effect:—"President seems a little better, and is resting quietly; pulse, 124; doctors have some little hope." I am sorry to hear—but this I cannot vouch for—that later telegrams of a private character are not of so good a description.

TURKEY—THE MURDER OF THE LATE SULTAN, ABDUL AZIZ—MIDHAT PASHA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information could be given with reference to the trial of Midhat Pasha, which was now proceeding at Constantinople? He was quite aware that this was a question of great delicacy as regarded interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but it could not be otherwise than a matter

  1915
  of deep interest to their Lordships, and to the country generally, to know that all that was possible was being done to insure a just trial, as upon the issue of the trial might depend the life of a distinguished statesman.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have been in communication with Lord Dufferin on this subject, which is exciting great interest in Europe. Of the trial I have received no authentic Re-port, and it would clearly not be right for me to express any official opinion upon it. I am not, at the present moment, able to give your Lordships any further information on the subject.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
SECOND READING.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)moved—
"That the Order of the 1st day of April last, which limits the time for the Second Reading of any Private Bill brought from the House of Commons be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be read 2a."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he had some doubt as to whether the Bill deserved such indulgence at their Lordships' hands. It sanctioned what seemed to him a very objectionable route for a new line, which the London and South-Western Railway Company proposed to construct, and he should reserve to himself the right of opposing it on a future occasion.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SUBSTITUTED PROCESS.—QUESTION.
LORD HARLECHwished to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that personal service of processes for recovery of possession of land or for debt is systematically evaded in many parts of Ireland, and that the practice followed in most counties of permitting other modes of service to be substituted is not adopted in the counties of Leitrim and Cavan; and whether, with the view of a uniformity of practice and a due execution of the law being insured, he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the subject? In expla-
1916
nation of his Question, he begged to read the following extracts from two letters he had received on the subject:—
"Our chairman at the late Quarter Sessions at Ballinamore declared in open Court that his sympathies were entirely on the side of the tenant in ejectment cases which he was then trying, and it was only where the law compelled him he would give a decree. I was present. He struck out several cases on the service of ejectments which has hitherto been ruled and accepted as good service by his predecessors—namely, when a bailiff went on three several days to the defendant's house and finding it closed he posted ejectments on the door of the dwelling and a like copy in the next market town. He gave decrees only when he could not avoid doing so, and then made them comparatively useless by putting long stays on them. In one case, particularly, he showed his feelings. A man who purchased at a sheriff's sale a tenant's interest, sold under a Superior Court writ, brought an ejectment in the usual way on the sheriff's deed, and obtained a decree after a great squabble between the attorneys. But he put a stay of five months on it, and on Mr. M'Keon, the attorney for the purchaser, reasoning with him on the hardship of staying the decree, after giving his money for it, and paying the landlord two years' rent due thereon, he got out of temper and added another month to the stay."
"I, the other day, at Ballinamore, took down in writing expressions made use of by Mr. Waters, the present County Court Judge. The Judge would not on any consideration allow that posting was sufficient service, even where four attempts had been made at service, and the door found shut. In giving his decision, he said, 'That he wished that he could give dismisses in every case of ejectment brought by landlords, as if he was able to go by his own wishes he would never be instrumental in putting a tenant out of his holding.' In every possible way he decided against landlords, and on every application made for a stay on a decree, he granted to October or November. You may make any use of this letter you wish, and also of my name."
LORD CARLINGFORD, in reply, said, that the noble Lord had given no Notice by his Question that he had any intention of referring to the conduct or language of any County Court Judge in Ireland. He (Lord Carlingford) imagined the noble Lord's Question would be a pure question of law, and as such he was prepared to answer it. The question of substituted service was purely one of administration, and turned on the interpretation of the statutes from which County Court Judges derived their powers. It was true that there were exceptions to the practice of allowing other modes of serving process to be substituted for personal service in those cases in which parties could not be found at their dwellings. He had received a

1917
letter from the County Court Judge referred to, explaining that his hesitation to allow substituted service was caused by the view which he took of his statutory powers. The diversity in the views of County Court Judges on the question of their right to permit substituted service was, no doubt, inconvenient and unfortunate. The Executive Government had no control over County Court Judges either in Ireland or England; but they had communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland with the hope that uniformity of practice might be obtained in the matter to which the attention of their Lordships had been called.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the question was a very difficult one, and he was very glad that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Harlech) had brought it forward. There could be no doubt that the personal service of writs was open to very serious objection, for it was fraught with much danger and often marked by bloodshed. He said this not at all in the interest of the landlords. What happened was this—In a disturbed district a number of writs were issued, and probably only a very small portion of them led to any result or eviction. When the writ could not be served application had to be made to a Superior Court for substituted service; but when such application was made the parties were put to considerable expense, and also to considerable delay. Even then they were met with the further difficulty that the Judges might hold very different opinions as to the circumstances under which they were justified in allowing substituted services to take place. He had the strongest possible sympathy with what was recently said by a County Court Judge—namely, that while the law remained as it was he did not feel justified—except on the strongest possible evidence—to allow substituted service. It seemed to him that there was a great deal to be said in favour of the view that, under particular circumstances, the Court before which the case was first heard might be allowed on its responsibility to allow service by posting the notice in some public place or sending it through the post. If that were permitted there could be no doubt whatever that the service would take place in an effectual manner, and he believed that a considerable amount of bad feel-
1918
ing and personal risk would in many cases be avoided.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the tendency of modern legislation had been to enable the Courts to order substituted service through the Post Office, and when it was done in that way much trouble was saved and no disturbance whatever took place. If the County Court Judges had that power it was a pity they should not exorcise it; but if they had not the power the law should be amended to give it to them.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he did not think that his noble Friend behind him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was quite correct in his observations. Unless he (Lord Carlingford) was quite mistaken the jurisdiction in cases where the proceedings originated in the County Court itself lay with the County Court Judge, and not with the Superior Court, unless there had been an appeal. It so happened that on the point mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord there had never yet been an appeal; and, therefore, the Superior Courts had not had the means of guiding the Courts below them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, there was very good reason in Ireland for permitting substituted service. The rule requiring the personal service of writs bore very hardly on many persons who were anxious to recover the rents due to them. The noble Lord had, he thought, passed rather lightly over the difficulty of personal service, the ringing bells, the beating drums, the lighting fires on hills, and the other means of collecting a mob to prevent the process-server doing his duty. He was of opinion that the personal service of process was more frequently prevented by violent interference than by the absence of the debtors. He was in favour of permitting service through the post. Process might, in the absence of the debtor, be served by affixing the writ to a door; but even in such cases ingenious attempts were made to defeat the law by removing the door.
LORD CARLINGFORDexplained that in his statement he purposely omitted cases of intimidation, for the County Judge informed him that in those cases his powers were such that he had no difficulty in giving directions for the service of the process to be made otherwise than personally.
THE EARL OF ANNESLEYsaid, that some alteration in the system of process-serving was urgently needed in the County of Cavan. It was his misfortune to possess a considerable estate in that county, and he could inform their Lordships that in point of fact there was no law whatever in that county, owing to the action of the County Court Judge in question. His tenants had declared last November that they would not pay their rents, and they had stuck to their resolution ever since. Whenever a process-server appeared among them the people were at once called together by the sound of the drum and by other loud noises. On one occasion 2,000 men had been so assembled, and, armed with guns and pitchforks, they had proceeded to his hunting lodge, which they had threatened to burn down. He had recently heard from his surveyor that a tenant who had been dispossessed of a small farm by the sheriff had openly driven his stock back upon the holding, of which he was now in possession, boasting that there was no one who could turn him out. That was the law in Cavan as administered by Mr. Waters.
THE EARL OF SANDWICHsaid, he hoped the Lord Privy Seal would turn his attention to the law regulating the recovery of land in Ireland, for it required amendment. On his (the Earl of Sandwich's) estate in Limerick County he had to take a tenant before a Court of Law in Dublin, in order to evict him, because he would not pay his rent. He had been successful in the action; but, notwithstanding this, the tenant still remained in his holding and defied the law. Another tenant of his had had his goods seized on civil process by a moneylender, who turned him and his family, neck and crop, into the roadway, entered into possession of the unfortunate man's holding, and so instituted himself one of his (the Earl of Sandwich's) tenants without asking his leave. There he remained, and he was unable to eject him. It was very Irish law that was in force in Ireland at the present time.

ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND—THE SCHEME OF THE SENATE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EMLYasked the Lord Privy Seal, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the scheme laid
  1920
  before Parliament in April last by the Senate of the Royal University of Ireland, and whether they will announce their intentions on the subject in time to allow matriculation examinations to be held during the present year? The noble Lord said that the subject to which the question referred excited much interest in Ireland, and that the Secretary of the Royal University of Ireland was besieged by anxious inquiries on the subject. He believed that something like 1,700 students had passed the highest standard in the examinations held in connection with the system of intermediate education in that country, and a great number of them would be prevented from competing for various prizes at the Royal University on the ground that they would be too old to do so if the matriculation examinations were postponed much longer. He would point out that the very class of persons who would be selected as examiners would be just about to go away for their vacations. He hoped the Government, who had had three months to arrive at a conclusion, would announce their decision, so as to avoid the grave inconvenience which would otherwise be caused.
  LORD CARLINGFORDassured his noble Friend that he felt as strongly on the subject as he did. He was quite aware of the great interest taken in the matter by a large number of persons in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government, being quite aware of that fact, would be very sorry that the present year should be lost, and would take steps, so far as lay with them, to enable the Royal University of Ireland to commence its operations without delay. He was able to inform his noble Friend that it would be his duty before very long to introduce a short Bill into this House for the purpose of charging upon the Irish Church Fund such an annual sum as in the view of Her Majesty's Government would be sufficient to enable the Royal University of Ireland to perform its work, and, as they hoped, with efficiency and success.
  LORD EMLYsaid, that he had heard the statement of his noble Friend with the greatest possible satisfaction, and he was quite sure that that satisfaction would be felt by all persons in Ireland who really took any interest in higher education.

ARMY—DESERTION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he rose to call attention to a statement reported in the public journals to have been made by the Secretary of State for War on the 24th of June, that "desertion in the Army has already been greatly reduced within the last ten years;" and to ask Her Majesty's Government How that statement, made by a Cabinet Minister, could be reconciled with the figures given in the War Office Returns, showing an average increase of over 60 per cent during the years referred to over previous years?
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that before the noble Earl put his Question he wished to call attention to the manner in which it had been framed. It had always been held that their Lordships' House should not take notice of what had occurred in the other House of Parliament, as reported in the public journals. He would suggest that his noble Friend should leave out the words referring to a Cabinet Minister, and simply call attention to the statements made in a paper issued by authority. It was better that the strict Rules of.the House should be observed.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he would have been much obliged to his noble Friend if he had brought the subject to his notice two days ago. He would be only too happy to put the Question in the manner suggested by his noble Friend. It was, however, only on Friday last, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had pointed out that both the First Commissioner of Works and the President of the Board of Trade had laid themselves open to a charge which practically amounted to a perversion of facts; the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Waterford) who followed the noble Duke in debate, had also shown that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came under the same category; and he (the Earl of Galloway) now regretted that he felt it to be his painful duty to add a fourth Minister of the Crown to the same list—namely, the Secretary of State for War. A fortnight ago, he (the Earl of Galloway) had brought before the House the subject of waste in the Army, which he had attributed in a great degree to de-
  1922
  sertion. He had then stated that whereas from 1864 to 1871 the average number of desertions annually was 3,153, the number in the eight following years averaged 5,161. He gave these figures on the authority of the Report of General Lord Airey's Committee. The illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief had said that the number of deserters had practically not varied for the last 20 years, if the number of deserters were compared with the total number of soldiers in the Army. He was much surprised when, four days later, he saw in the public journals a statement made by the Secretary of State for War, in "another place," that, by the greater popularity of the new scheme in the country, desertion, which had already been greatly reduced, would be still further diminished. What were the facts? The General Annual Return of the British Army, which had been prepared at the instance of the Commander-in-Chief (the Duke of Cambridge) for the information of the Secretary of State for War, showed that there had been a great increase in the amount. It showed that during the 10 years from 1861–70 inclusive, the number was 33,578, whereas from 1871 to 1879 inclusive, it was 45,485; and, if he added to those figures those which he found in another document which had been laid on the Table of the House—namely, the Annual Return of the Inspector General of Recruiting, and which showed a great increase last year, the figures being 4,881—they would find that the total for the latter 10 years amounted to no less than 50,366. He had thought it right to bring the matter forward again; and he wanted to know whether they were to accept the statement of the illustrious Duke, or that of the Secretary of State for War, or take the figures from these Returns?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that he could not but admire the pertinacity with which the noble and gallant Earl opposite returned to this subject, not-, withstanding the explanation which he gave the other night, and which the noble and gallant Earl had totally ignored. What he was doing, when he gave the figures to which the noble and gallant Earl referred, was comparing the waste of the Army under the long and short-service system, and deducting the number of those who rejoined from the number of those who deserted. The

  1923
  noble and gallant Earl had referred to 1870; but when the Army was in a transition state it was impossible to judge what the effect of the new organization was. He called the attention of the noble and gallant Earl to Table 25 of the Returns, in which the figures were given. In all the years included in that Table—namely, 1861 to 1879—whether under longer short service, there had been fluctuations in the rate of desertions, and these fluctuations were not affected by the length of the service. Desertions were affected by the state of trade, the rapid augmentation of the Army, the chances of employment, and various other causes with which he was reluctant to trouble the House. He would, for the purpose of comparison, take the five years of long service ending in 1869, and the five years of short service ending in 1879. He found, as the noble and gallant Earl said, there was a certain increase in the total number of desertions in the last five years as compared with, the five years ended in 1869. He never disputed that. What he did say was that the number of men who rejoined the Army was in the first five years smaller than in the second five years; and the average of the net loss per annum in the years 1875–9, after deducting those men who rejoined, was only 217 more than the average net loss per annum for the years 1865–9. But the main point was to compare the figures with the average strength of the Army and the number of recruits who annually joined the Army. It was admitted, on all hands, that desertions took place more at home than abroad, and more among young recruits than old soldiers. In the last five years, from 1875 to 1879, the strength of the Army at home was, on the average, excluding officers, about 12,000 more than in 1865–9; and yet the percentage of net loss on the Home Army was almost exactly the same. [The Earl of GALLOWAY dissented.] The noble and gallant Earl shook his head, but let him show where the error was. In 1861 there were 10,000 recruits, and the percentage of deserters was 41. Taking all the years from 1861 to 1879, the percentage of deserters to recruits was 22. In the last year of long service—1869—the percentage of desertions to recruits was 27. There had been a gradual and marked decrease in the desertion of recruits. In 1875, the percentage was
  1924
  24; in 1877, it was 17; in 1878, it was 19; and in 1879, it was 16. He thought these figures completely refuted the argument of the noble and gallant Earl. Taking into consideration the total waste, he repeated that, although the number of desertions, considered by themselves, were larger, yet, taking net results into consideration, the waste of the Army under the short-service system had, practically, not increased; and, if further, they took the other causes of waste, such as death and invaliding, into account, the waste had actually diminished.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he had not offered one observation on the question of long or short service. He quoted certain figures, and they had not been disputed, and the noble Lord representing the Government had only tried, by beating about the bush, to prove that black was white; but he adhered to the figures. What he wanted to know was whether or not desertions had increased? The noble Earl, in his answer the other day, certainly led the House to suppose that, on the whole, they were decreasing, and his statement was confirmed by his Leader in the other House; whereas, when the Returns were published, it was found that instead of their being any decrease they had increased at least 60 per cent during the last 10 years. Were they to accept the figures in the Return as correct or not?
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, this was another illustration of the saying that they could make figures prove anything. For his own part, he considered the answer of the noble Earl an unsatisfactory one. All officers speaking on this subject, whether they came from India, from Malta, or from Aldershot, were unanimous in complaining of the increasing number of desertions. He thought the explanation of the apparent contradiction was to be found in the fact that certain men deserted several times. He heard of one man who had joined 18 different regiments. They would never stop this until they adopted a system of marking. Humanitarians talked of the pain, but men often marked themselves from fancy.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the Question which was asked by his noble and gallant Friend was not about the waste of the Army, but whether during the last 10 years desertions had not been increasing, and the effect of

  1925
  the answer given by the noble Earl that night appeared to be that, taking the net results and making allowance for those who returned from a state of desertion, the number remained about the same. When a soldier was brought back to his regiment as a deserter, the fact of his return did not cancel his previous act of desertion, and thus diminish the total number of desertions, as the noble Earl seemed to maintain. The important fact was that in the last 10 years there had been a large increase in the number of desertions as compared with the previous 10 years. What the reason for that increase was it was not for him to say. The question, however, was not one as to the gross or the net loss of the Force.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION.

  PETITIONS PRESENTED. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in rising to present some Petitions from Boards of Guardians in Devonshire and from a local Chamber of Agriculture praying that the limit of age for compulsory education might, be lowered below 14 years, and that passing the Third Standard only, instead of the Fourth Standard, might be required of children as the condition of their being allowed to work for their living, said: My Lords, in presenting these Petitions from the Devonshire Chamber of Agriculture, and the Boards of Guardians of South Molton, Holsworthy, and Newton Abbot, which are identical in their Prayer, and from the Board of Guardians of Okehampton, which only differs slightly from that Prayer, I must begin by professing my complete agreement with the first of these entrusted to me, that from the South Molton Board of Guardians, the circulation of which in Devonshire led to its adoption, either in its entirety, or with slight modification, by these other bodies—
  "Your Petitioners beg to state that they are fully sensible of the great importance of education, and are sincerely desirous that even the poorest children in the land should receive such instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic as to enable any child wishing4 to do so after leaving school to proceed further in the acquisition of knowledge."
  I can, from personal experience of nearly 40 years, first as Vice-Chairman, then as Chairman, of the South Molton Board of Guardians and of its School Attendance Committee, testify to the sincerity
  1926
  of the statement of their full appreciation of the importance of education. For the Guardians in both these capacities have throughout loyally endeavoured to carry out the law, not merely by legal proceedings, but, both before and since the Act of 1870, by often substituting an order for the workhouse for out-door relief in cases of obstinate refusal or evasion on the part of parents or children; and, further, in the instance of many Guardians, by their personal influence as employers of labour. I can say the same from long personal knowledge of my friend, Colonel Tanner Davy, the mover of the Petition at the Chamber of Agriculture. And I feel bound to say this on their behalf, because I well know to what misrepresentations both the Petitioners and I shall be exposed from the declaimers in favour of education, who, thanks to the educational grants from the Treasury, and the more recent school rates levied on real property—public contributions both originated in my time—have now the opportunity of cheaply earning a reputation for superior enlightenment and sympathy with the people. It was very different 40 years ago, when I first began endeavouring to promote education at the sacrifice of much labour, a good deal of money, and for a long while of a certain amount of popularity. Your Lordships will forgive me if I go on to say, in no spirit of boastfulness, but merely in my own defence against attacks which I foresee, that I have endeavoured to promote and improve education to all classes—in my own class, by giving some prizes to the great public school, of which I and most of my sons have been alumni; in the middle class, not only by taking a leading part in the foundation of the Devon County School—the first county school ever established, which has passed more boys at the University local examinations than any other school in England—but also more recently by actively assisting in the foundation of Cavendish College, which is now enjoying a success and doing a work worthy of the illustrious name which it bears. Yet in money I have spent many times more in building, maintaining, and supporting elementary schools for the wage class, and training colleges for teachers in them, than I have for both the higher and middle class together; and though this is to be reckoned by

  1927
  thousands in the course of my life, what I have done in this way is little indeed compared to what has been so spent by many Members of this House, and also by many others. For the amount freely given for building elementary schools and training schools for teachers, by members of different Christian Churches, and especially of the Church of England, amounts to £5,000,000 in my own time, besides what they have given for their maintenance, which would amount to many millions more. I must also, in passing, express my concurrence in what the Petitioners go on to say—
  "Your Petitioners must add that they would, moreover, desire to see all children (except those whose parents deliberately object) instructed besides in the elementary truths of Christianity."
  The good sense and good feeling of the nation, in spite of our defective legislation on this point, from the first sanctioned the general adoption of at least Scripture reading in the schools, except, indeed, in one of the largest and wealthiest towns in England, which, to console it for its excessive juvenile delinquency, and, indeed, general criminality, its excessive amount of preventible disease and preventible mortality, has the exceptional honour of returning two Cabinet Ministers to Parliament. But I pass on to points of more immediate practical importance. The Petitioners say—
  "Your Petitioners are satisfied, from their own experience and that of elementary school teachers, that one especially of the well-meant provisions in the statutes, and the only bye-laws of late sanctioned by the Education Department, is often a cause of great hardship to some of the children themselves, to their parents or surviving parent, if independent, and, if paupers, to the ratepayers, and that it unquestionably much impedes the industrial training of those children, while generally adding very little to their book-learning. Your Petitioners mean the provision prohibiting (except on the half-time system as under the Factory Acts) the industrial employment of children up to the age of 14, unless they have passed the Fourth Standard, or have made 250 attendances yearly for five years at a certified efficient school. This implies less time of earning and of industrial training to the children, and correspondingly more expense for their maintenance and schooling, either to their parents or to the ratepayers, as the case may be."
  I hardly know what I can add to the Petitioners' reasoning. They do not deny, what I confidently affirm, that children can and often do pass the
  1928
  Fourth Standard at 10 years old. But what we contend is, that though the Fourth Standard is desirable for all, and attainable by many, children, it is not yet at present practically attainable by others, and probably never will be for all. According to the old proverb, one man can take the horse to the water, but 50 cannot make him drink. The Petitioners say—
  "In the instances, such as your Petitioners have known, of children having, owing to their parents' neglect or their own, passed only the First or Second Standard at 13, this prohibition implies another year's detention at school of a child despairing of escape from it, except by the lapse of time, and therefore probably idle, conscious of being a burden instead of a help to its parents, and therefore justly discontented and probably disposed to be mutinous, and almost certain from its age to exercise some influence over its school-fellows, probably to their disadvantage and to the annoyance and discouragement of the teacher. Moreover, the postponement of all industrial training till after 14 places the child in many kinds of work at a permanent disadvantage, and renders it for life a less productive member of the community."
  Who, for instance, doubts that a boy who has not begun to handle animals till after 14, will, unless he happens to have an exceptional aptitude for it, stand at a lasting disadvantage compared with those who have begun at 10 or 12?
  "The practical operations of this provision bearing hardly upon all, bears all the harder upon the agricultural ratepayers; because, while they find the juvenile labour required by them thus rendered scarcer and dearer, they have to pay in school rates for the often useless schooling of many, and in poor rates for the maintenance of not a few, children who might be maintaining themselves by labour profitable to the community, and doubly useful to themselves as a source of earnings for the present and of industrial training for the future."
  I was ridiculed some time ago for talking of the influence of recent school legislation upon agriculture, and especially upon weeding. But it is obvious that weeds must considerably affect the present, and, if left to spread, the future productiveness of the land. Weeding, however, can only profitably be done with cheap labour by those who have passed or those who have not yet come to their full strength. The crippled and aged have backs and fingers too stiff, if not eyes too dim, for weeding with efficiency or comfort, whereas the sharp eyes, flexible frames, and lissom fingers of children are particularly suited to the work. I stated some years ago in the

  1929
  House, previous to the present agricultural depression, that £50,000 a-year less was being then spent on juvenile labour than before in Norfolk, so that a county, once considered the model county of England for neat and skilful cultivation, had, I learnt from good authority, perceptibly deteriorated. We hear much of the danger of England's being distanced in her present severe industrial competition with other countries on account of their superior education. The highly protective Tariffs of all other civilized nations, including our own Colonies, look as if that was not their opinion. But if this danger be real, I believe it rather to arise from the ill-devised and unsatisfactory, though most elaborate, scheme of education, gradually forced upon the nation by that unpractical and essentially bureaucratic Department, the Education Office, with its expensive and complicated system of tests, with its voluminous Codes, requiring a costly army of clerks in Downing Street to administer them, and a costly flying corps of some 150 Inspectors, scouring the country to test and enforce them, by annually examining every child in the schools, sometimes for five years or more, in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and separately noting its progress in each. What would be thought if they examined the cloth for any Government Department—first, when the wool had been carded; then, when it had been spun into thread; then, when woven; and then, when dressed and pressed; instead of examining it once for all when sent up as cloth? Why not test the children only on leaving school? A great majority of the school teachers throughout the country deprecate these frequent examinations, not only as being very costly and troublesome, but very depressing to slow children and repressing in their operation upon quick children, retarding the progress of the slow, many of them say, one year, and of the quick two years, involving in the aggregate a serious loss in the postponement of productive work, and the prolongation of costly schooling to millions of children. I do not impute much blame for this to the Parliamentary heads of the Department. With their many other important political duties as Members of the Cabinet, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), who for years besides the lead of this House had the
  1930
  charge of many legislative as well as administrative measures, and my noble Friend his Successor (Earl Spencer), with much special attention to give to Irish questions, it is impossible, as there are but 24 hours in the day, they should have been able to devote much time and attention to the Department. We see an illustration of this when the very able permanent officials in it, always seeking fresh fields to conquer, carried that anomalous novelty called Advanced Elementary Education—certainly never contemplated by the authors of the Act of 1870—so much further than the noble Duke intended, that he strove in vain, too late, to restrain it. The education given in most of the schools under the Department, judged by its results, is stated to contrast unfavourably, not only with that in the half-time Greenwich naval schools, declared by a naval officer sent by the United States to report upon the naval schools of Europe to be decidedly the best of them, the class of lads there being, however, superior to the average, but to contrast unfavourably with that in the half-time district pauper schools under the Local Government Board, and the half-time reformatory and industrial schools under the Home Office—all three with children of inferior hereditary types and low early associations, but all three with regular drill, to which I think every schoolboy in England, from the Duke's son to the beggar's, should be subjected, as a most useful educational and disciplinary instrument, valuable for industrial as well as martial training. The teachers and managers of these institutions, in charge of some 30,000 children, at a recent meeting earnestly protested, on account of the probable consequences to those children, against being transferred to the Education Department. My friend, Mr. Chad-wick, a member of the original Commission of Inquiry into the state of factory children, having long taken a deep interest in education, and recognized throughout Europe as one of the highest sanitary authorities, says in a recent address—
  "The long-time teaching has large physical drawbacks. The first evil is a reduction of aptitude fur physical labour and steady industry. We must keep in view, as a cardinal maxim, as the first objective point in all popular elementary education, the Primo vivere deinde philosophari. Long desk-work makes labour painful to the pupils at the outset. It certainly tends with us to overcharge the labour market for sedentary service at the expense of agricultural service.

  1931
  It is now a subject of wide complaint in our rural districts, that the eyes of children taken into schools under the new compulsory law are seriously injured. We see such a result elsewhere in the large proportion of the soldiers who are spectacled in some of the more educated States on the Continent."
  Curiously enough, within the last week, I was reading in a French paper of the attention which the great increase of shortsightedness in France attributed to increased school attendance is exciting. Mr. Chadwick goes on to say—
  "Then as respects females, we find that curvatures of the spine are seriously frequent in long-time schools where physical exercises are deficient. These evils the half-school-time principle reduces decidedly and immediately by much more than one-half. With us, and in France and Belgium, there are complaints of the increasing scarcity of competent agricultural labour, and of the tendency which the population shows to seek more sedentary or more interesting society of the towns. This evil agriculturists are beginning to trace to the defective character of their education, which fails to interest them in rural life and rural occupations."
  The opinion of this veteran official inquirer is remarkably confirmed, I find, by an eminently independent and unofficial thinker and writer, Mr. Herbert Spencer, who remarks—
  "To be a nation of good animals is the first condition of national prosperity. Not only is it that the event of a war often turns on the strength and hardihood of soldiers, but it is that the contests of commerce are in part determined by the bodily endurance of producers. Thus far we have found no reason to fear trials of strength with other races in either of these fields. But there are not wanting signs that our powers will presently be taxed to the uttermost. Hence it is becoming of special importance that the training of children should be so carried on as not only to lit them mentally for the struggle before them, but also to make them physically fit to hear its excessive wear and tear."
  Confirmed in my views by such high and varied authorities, I will conclude by reading the Prayer of the four Petitions—
  "Your Petitioners therefore pray that passing the Third Standard, which implies the possession of elementary knowledge quite sufficient to enable the child afterwards to acquire an indefinite amount of further knowledge, may he substituted for the Fourth Standard, as the indispensable preliminary to engaging in ordinary work, and that, at least, until the establishment of some efficient general system of half-time labour and education, 12 may be substituted for 14 as the limit of compulsory school age."
  The Okehampton Petition prays for 13 instead of 14 as the limit of compulsory school age, and 10 for beginning half-time work.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not enter into the question of the limit of age of school board pupils, as it had been debated over and over again, and Parliament had given an emphatic judgment upon it. He must confess that although he had listened with attention to the speech of the noble Earl, he could not even now understand what it was the noble Earl desired. His speech seemed to be an attack upon the Education Department, because at the commencement of it he confessed that he did not like it, in the middle he repeated that he had no opinion of it, and towards the end he stated that he distrusted it. The noble Earl said that the time of the Lords President was too much taken up by various matters outside the Department to admit of their being able to superintend the work of the Office as much as they ought. He was very much surprised to hear the noble Earl make such an attack upon the Education Department. Now, at the time the late Government were in Office he was responsible for everything that took place in that Office; and he had no hesitation in saying that it was one of the best-officered Departments of the Government. All the working of the Department was carried out, under the authority of the Lord President, by the Permanent Secretary (Sir Francis Sandford), who was a most able man, and had taken a high position at Oxford. The Inspectors of the Department, also, were worthy of the high character they bore; they were an excellent body of men, and did their work in a most satisfactory manner, as also did the Examiners. He was therefore at a loss to know the ground on which the noble Earl had attacked the Department; and he felt it his duty to rise and protest against the statements the noble Earl had made.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke as to the efficiency of the very distinguished body of gentlemen who managed the Education Department under their political Chiefs; and he also had the highest possible opinion of the Inspectors throughout the country. He believed that both the gentlemen in the Department and the Inspectors fully understood what the people required in regard to elementary education. When he saw his noble Friend's modest Notice on the Paper, he did not expect that Ms noble Friend

  1933
  would make a speech attacking the permanent officials and their political Chiefs; but his noble Friend had gone through the whole subject of National Education in a manner which he (Earl Spencer) was not prepared to hear. His noble Friend would hardly expect him to follow him through all his points. He could not at present do justice to the subject; besides, the question should be brought up on a Motion, and not upon a Petition. He would answer the Question of which his noble Friend had given Notice. They all knew how zealous his noble Friend was in the cause of education; but he differed from his noble Friend in the views which he had put forth that night. He received a great number of Petitions, almost identical in terms to those presented by the noble Earl, last year both after and before the passing of the bye-laws which really completed the system of compulsory education in the country. His answer to the Petitions was that he did not see that there was any practical hardship whatever in the present law, for every child had an opportunity of going to work before the age of 14, either by passing Standard IV., which could very well be done at the age of 10—no fewer than 9,000 children under 10 having passed that standard last year—or by making the requisite number of attendances under the so-called "Dunces' Clause." Any modification of the present restriction, which only told against a very few children, would, he believed, tend to remove the inducement now felt by parents to keep their children regularly at school. He did not, however, see why the principle of half-time should not be more largely applied to agricultural districts, so that children might be able to go to the fields just as they did to the factories in manufacturing districts. Huddersfield and other large towns had even adopted Standard IV. for half-timers.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he begged to disclaim any intention to censure either the officers of the Education Department or the Inspectors.

  SOLWAY FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A. Bill to amend the Law relating to Fisheries in the Solway Firth—Was presented by The Earl of GALLOWAY; read 1a. (No. 144.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.