Lords Sitting of 27 June 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act Amendment* (166); Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment* (167).
Second Reading—Lunacy Regulation Amendment* (160).
Select Committee—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment* (60), nominated.
Committee—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8)* (146); County Courts (Ireland)* (105–168).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (153).
Report—Lunacy Districts (Scotland)* (117).
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* (157); Water Provisional Orders* (158); Poor Rates* (113); Somersham Rectory* (116); Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers* (143), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable John David FitzGerald, one of the Justices of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland, appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron FitzGerald of Kilmarnock, in the county of Dublin—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EXKING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.—QUESTION.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, I wish to ask him a Question with reference to the proposed visit of the ex-King Cetewayo to England. I had placed on the Table of your Lordships' House a Notice of a Question as to this proposed visit on Thursday next; but, as I understand that it is the intention of the Government that the ex-King should arrive in England before long, I wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether he has any objection to lay on the Table any further correspondence and despatches on the subject, and what ground there is for the change of opinion of Sir Henry Bulwer in reference thereto?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It would have been far more convenient if
528
my noble Friend had given me Notice of this Question. If he had done so, I should have been able at once to give him the substance of the telegrams that have passed. If the noble Earl will repeat the Question on Thursday I shall then be able to answer him.

EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)—THE ANNUAL REPORT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in rising to call attention to the Annual Report for 1881 of the Commissioners of Education for Ireland; and to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would consider the recommendations therein made by the Commissioners, with a view to giving effect to them by legislation next year? pointed out that these Reports had been brought under the notice of the House and the Government on former occasions; but nothing had been done in the way of legislation. The Board of Education in Ireland was appointed in 1814, and it dealt with property of considerable amount, which had been intrusted to them for educational purposes. The Board consisted of two kinds of Governors, ex-officio, the holders of high offices, and a number of Governors who were nominated; and these again were divided into two classes—those who resided in Dublin and those who resided in the country; but since the Board was originally constituted many changes had been made in regard to it. The ex-officio members were the two Archbishops of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and he believed that if only one Member sat in Parliament for the University of Dublin he also would be an ex-officio member; but as there were two Members of Parliament for that University, a doubt was raised as to which should be summoned, and in the end neither was. In connection with the appointments made for meetings of the Board great inconvenience had been felt. The ex-officio members did not attend. All of them had other important duties to attend to elsewhere. He might say that only one of that body attended—namely, the Provost of Trinity College. The rule was that the Chairman of the Board must be an ex-officio member, consequently if one

  529
  was not present, no meeting could be held. The Board had been equally unfortunate, until lately, with regard to the attendance of other members. It was pointed out by the Royal Commission that in 1877–8, out of 28 meetings called, no less than nine had to be put off through there not being a quorum of members present, which was rather a serious matter. As far back as 1858 the Commissioners of Education made various recommendations to which the attention of the Government was called in 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1875, 1876, and 1877; and, notwithstanding that, not a single step had been taken, he believed, as regarded legislation, on any of the points. One of the recommendations was that it was essential to establish a system of efficient inspection of schools under the control of the Education Board by one Inspector, or, if necessary, by a staff of Inspectors. The Education Board, in spite of an opinion given by the Attorney General that they had no power to pay an Inspector, did pay £100 to a Fellow of Trinity College. But that was done only once. There was no doubt that the Board had no power to appoint a regular Inspector. Again, the Commissioners recommended the consolidation of the schools, and their removal in certain cases to more suitable localities, an extension of the present power of appointing the masters which was now in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Archbishop of Armagh; that the Board should have power to regulate the salaries of the teachers and assistant teachers, and also the cost of instruction in all schools within their jurisdiction. Other recommendations were made by the Commissioners to make the schools under their control effective; and he did trust the Government would see their way to sanction legislation to carry out as many of these recommendations as they might deem necessary.
  THE EARL OF ROSSEsaid, he thought the recommendations of the Commissioners were entitled to more consideration than they had received at the hands of the Education Department, and he hoped to hear from the Government that the subject was likely to receive attention next Session.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he hoped the noble Earls (the Earl of Belmore and the Earl of
  530
  Rosse) would not measure the importance which he attached to the subject by the length of the remarks he should make upon it. He could, however, safely say that he was thoroughly satisfied that reform in the matter was greatly needed—reform both in the constitution and powers of the Commission. The noble Earl was quite right in saying that no one could be blamed for bringing the question forward, because the materials had been accumulating for years in the shape of several able inquiries and of the special and annual Reports of the Commission itself; and he was bound to say that those Reports had not received that attention which they deserved. That observation applied to the Governments with which his noble Friend had been connected as well as to the Governments with which he (Lord Carlingford) had been connected, and he therefore made that confession cheerfully. But as to what should now be done he could say this, at least—that the Government would direct their attention to the subject before the next meeting of Parliament; and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland hoped, in the course of the Recess, when he might be free to devote himself to such peaceful labours, to put himself in communication with the Commission, and to confer with his noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore) or the other Commissioners as to the present position and powers of the Commission, and as to the legislation that might be necessary to make the Commission efficient, and to make the schools themselves what they ought to be.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREthanked the noble Lord for his statement, which was perfectly satisfactory, and stated that the Commissioners would be most happy to confer with the Chief Secretary on the subject, with a view of ascertaining what was best to be done.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY (for Viscount MONCK)inquired of the Government, Whether there would be any objection to making public the papers, in modern European languages, which were set at the examinations for the Civil Services of England and of India during the year 1881? With re-

  531
  gard to India, modern European languages did not seem to be very necessary, and certainly had not the importance, and did not deserve to have allotted to them the same number of marks as should be given to the classical languages—Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian. He thought there were several members of the Indian Council better qualified than the Civil Service Commissioners to set papers, or choose the subjects for examination for Indian candidates.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,in reply, said, that his noble Friend would not expect him to enter into the question of Civil Service examinations generally; it had been decided long ago that it was beneficial to have such examinations. It had been decided that the Papers referred to should be published as an Appendix to the next Report of the Civil Service Commissioners.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877—Was presented by The Lord THURLOW; read 1a. (No. 166.)
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts; and for other purposes—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 167.)

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Sudeley.

  E. Powis.

  L. Monck.

  E. Cairns.

  L. Coleridge.

  V. Sherbrooke.

  L. Bramwell.

  L. Clinton.

  The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 5th of July next, at Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.