Lords Sitting of 19 February 1883

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (the EARL SYDNEY)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—
MY LORDS,
I THANK you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
I confidently rely upon your cordial assistance and support in all measures which may be submitted to you for the purpose of improving and strengthening the laws and institutions of the Country and promoting the best interests of My Empire.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked whether the Government intended to introduce in their Lordships' House any measures before Easter, and, if they did intend to do so, what those measures were to be?
  EARL GRANVILLEin reply, said, it was intended to introduce several measures in that House, and amongst them would be a Bill for the better Protection of Young Girls and Women, a Bill to amend the Factory Acts, a Bill with regard to Scotch Peerages, a Bill with regard to the regulation of Fisheries, a Bill with regard to Naval Discipline, a Bill with regard to the Medical Council, and a Bill affecting Education in Wales. There was also a Bill relating to Ireland which would be introduced by the Lord Privy Seal, but to which he would not further refer in the absence of his noble Friend.
  EARL STANHOPEasked whether the Bill to amend the Factory Acts would deal with the question of the long hours during which assistants in shops were compelled to work?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he would prefer to postpone his answer until the introduction of the Bill.

ARMY—PROMOTION—THE ROYAL WARRANT—ARTICLE 20.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF POWISrose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War—(1), When the existing vacancies in the list of general officers of the Line would be filled up? and (2), Whether the "special recommendations" required by Article 20 of the Royal Warrant as to officers promoted by selection were made in writing and recorded in the War Department? He said, that last autumn a new practice had been introduced; vacancies were kept open for a considerable time, and might have remained open still longer were it not for the Egyptian Gazette. He was not going to touch upon the promotions on account of the Egyptian campaign, which were made under special circumstances, and under another Article; but the War Office must have known the exact date at which the vacancies to which he referred would occur, and they ought to have been filled up at once. He was not going to say a word upon the question of selection; he took the Warrant as he found it, and his Questions were for information as to the mode in which it was carried on. The Warrant said that any qualified colonel might be recommended for promotion as major-general, and all promotions were to be approved by the Secretary of State for War, so that the responsibility rested with him. It was only the initiatory step that was taken by the Commander-in-Chief. As our Army was the only one in Europe which had a civilian and politician and not a soldier at its head, it was a safeguard for officers that the initiatory recommendations should be given for military and not political reasons. They all knew the pressure which might be put upon Ministers by Members of Parliament, and that led him to the second Question, Whether the officers promoted by selection were recommended specially as required by the Warrant, and in what form these recommendations were made; whether they were in writing, and whether they were preserved as documents for future reference? The special recommendation was an important part of the matter, because the Warrant went on to say that in the absence of special recommendation the promotion should be given
  282
  to the senior colonel. On the occasion to which he referred, out of 13 officers six were taken and seven left. No. 1 was promoted. No. 2 was not, though he had served in the Burmese War, had been twice wounded, and had commanded a brigade in the field. Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted. No. 5 was passed over, though he had commanded a regimental district, a command which was one of absolute selection, and was always given to a meritorious officer. The sixth was promoted; the seventh was passed over, though he had served in the Crimea, in India and New Zealand, where he was severely wounded in storming a pah, the officer in command of the regiment having lost his life. The eighth was promoted; the ninth, who had served long and commanded a regiment, was passed over. The tenth, who had been Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, was passed over. At present there were nine Aides-de-Camp to the Queen selected from the Line, and it seemed extraordinary that an Aide-de-Camp of the Queen should be passed over as not qualified to command in the field. The eleventh had served in South Africa; but a General who had served in West Africa and had not commanded in the field was put over his head. Anyone taking up the Gazette would imagine that these officers had been passed over once. But the fact was that one officer had been passed over five times, another three times, another twice, and four officers once. He thought it desirable that these vacancies should be filled up as they occurred. To the two Questions of which he had given Notice, he would add a third, and would ask, How many of the officers who had been passed over were permanently disqualified for promotion from not having been reported as qualified to command in the field?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had occasion to complain, not of these Questions, but of the speech which the noble Lord had founded upon them. He was perfectly ready to give Answers to Questions; but the noble Earl had not given any previous indication that he was going to refer to matters which were foreign to the Questions which he had placed on the Paper, and to make an attack against the principle of selection; and he further complained that it was extremely inconvenient and very unusual to discuss the qualification of

  283
  officers who might be selected or not selected for commands from the general list of officers. The responsibility for those appointments rested with the Secretary of State for War, on the recommendation of the illustrious Duke, whose reasons for making them could not be publicly canvassed. He must decline, therefore, to enter into the cases brought forward and described by the noble Earl, for though the noble Earl very properly did not mention any names it was obvious to all to whom he referred. With respect to the first Question put by the noble Earl he was unable to give any answer at present, as the matter was still under consideration, and until the communications at present going on with the Treasury were completed, he was quite unable to say what would be done. As to the second Question, he might mention that only two appointments, such as the noble Earl referred to, had been made up to the present time, and in those cases the recommendations were not in writing. The illustrious Duke and the Secretary for War conferred together, and then they determined which officers deserved promotion and they were promoted. It would be very difficult to state the reasons for the promotions. The fact that the promotions were made by selection was, of course, very clearly marked, but there was no special recommendation in writing. No such recommendation was required by the Royal Warrant. The Warrant had been strictly complied with. As to the last Question, he could not keep in his head the exact position of every general officer on the List; but the noble Earl seemed to assume that certain officers who were kept in the list of colonels were disqualified for future promotion. The case was, that when a colonel was recommended for promotion, and not till then, the illustrious Duke, in making his recommendation, stated that the officer recommended for promotion was competent to command in the field.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEasked what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government respecting the disposal of the statue of the Duke of Wellington
  284
  that had been removed from the top of the arch at Hyde Park Corner? The considerations that should guide the selection of sites for statues were the appropriateness of their style to surrounding objects, the associations connected with the locality, and a good point of view for spectators. This realistic portrait of the Duke and his charger had been out of harmony with the classic arches and the Greek statue of Achilles, and was only well seen from the bedroom windows of the late Duke. At the edge of the Parade opposite to the Horse Guards it would he associated with the Head-quarters of the Army, and the place where Her Majesty welcomed her troops from Egypt, and where military trophies already stood. There it would be well seen by the passers-by. He hoped that position might be carefully considered.
  LORD SUDELEY,in reply, stated that it had been definitely decided not to replace the statue of the Duke of Wellington on the arch when reconstructed; but no decision had yet been arrived at as to its ultimate destination. Until the statue was upon terra firma, and until the site of the present arch had been cleared, it was impossible to form an estimate of the merits of the statue itself or its suitability to any of the available sites. As the House knew, the First Commissioner of Works had nominated a very important Committee to advise the Government upon the subject. This Committee was composed of the Duke of Wellington, as representing the family; Lord Hardinge, a Trustee of the National Gallery and of the National Portrait Gallery, and a great authority on art; Sir Frederick Leighton, President of the Royal Academy; Mr. Boehm, the eminent sculptor; Mr. Fergusson, whose writings and judgment on architecture were well known; and Mr. Mitford, the Secretary of the Office of Works, possessing great experience. In the selection of this Committee the public would have a guarantee that the advice given would carry great weight, seeing that the highest authorities on artistic matters were represented, while the presence of the Duke as one of its Members would give the assurance that nothing would be done which would be distasteful to the family of the illustrious General. The Committee did not propose to meet until the works were in

  285
  a sufficiently forward state to enable them to give sound advice. In these circumstances, the House would see that at present it was impossible to discuss the merits or demerits of any of the particular sites which had been proposed. The whole question would be very thoroughly considered in all its bearings. What had been said by the noble Lord would be well weighed; but it was far better to leave the Committee to form an unprejudiced decision.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, it might not be known to those who had not lived as long as himself that it was gratifying to the feelings of the late Duke that the statue was placed near Apsley House. The matter should be carefully considered; but he thought that no better place for the statue would be found than opposite Apsley House. It was there in one of the great thoroughfares by which London was approached, and it would be far more seen there than it would on the Parade at the Horse Guards, while it was far more in harmony with the surrounding buildings than it would be at the Horse Guards, where it could only stand awkwardly in relation to all the things about it.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE,said, that so far as associations were concerned, no place could be more appropriate than the Horse Guards, where, however, the space was unfortunately so limited that he could not conceive where it was to stand if it were put there. It would be a great mistake to put it where there could not be a considerable amount of open space around it, for otherwise justice could not be done to it. At the Horse Guards, the only place where space could be obtained was in the gardens in front; but the public would object to the statue being in the gardens to which they had not access. If the statue were put on one side or another in the space open to the public it would present a most extraordinary appearance, and very much spoil the place, while if it were placed in the centre of the open space it would entirely preclude the possibility of having a parade such as it was usual to have on Her Majesty's Birthday, and some other special occasions. He had no wish whatever to say that the Horse Guards was not a suitable place for the statue, for the Duke might be said to have more or less created the
  286
  Horse Guards and the present Army of England; but the position would not be suitable on account of the space being so limited, and he could not help thinking that it would be more gratifying to the family that the statue should remain nearer to Apsley House.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD,in moving that there be laid before the House—
  "Copy of Rule 72 of the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland; Copy of letter, dated 8th November 1882, from the Earl of Longford to the Lord President of the Council (on appeal from a decision of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) respecting the appointment of a sister of mercy as teacher in a national school open to non-Catholic children; and a Copy of any reply thereto;"
  said, he wished to ask whether such an appointment as that mentioned in his Notice was not contrary both to the spirit and letter of the regulations of the National Board in Ireland? The rule was that there should be no exhibition of any religious emblem or any teaching in the school-house allotted to secular instruction to which children or parent could take objection. On this understanding proprietors had promoted and established schools, and clergymen had raised subscriptions; workhouse schools and convent schools, under special rules, had been admitted into the National system. It recently came to his knowledge that a sister of mercy had been appointed teacher by the Board of Guardians in the school at Granard, and that the appointment had been approved by the Local Government Board. It appeared to him that this was in defiance both of the spirit and letter of the rules. He applied to the Commissioners of Education concerning the matter. Their first answer was rather a caricature. They referred him to the rule under which members of a religious community were permitted to be teachers in convent schools—an answer which was irrelevant, as this was not a convent school. He succeeded in obtaining a second reply, which was that the case had been fully considered, and that Rule 72 had no application; and, of course, it had not if it were not applied. Then he applied to the Lord Lieutenant, who saw no reason

  287
  to question the view of the Commissioners. He (the Earl of Longford), however, saw great reason. He found himself in some difficulty as to further proceedings; for when he wished to appeal from the Lord Lieutenant to the Lord President of the Council, he found that, under the somewhat unusual arrangement made by the Government, they were the same man. The Lord Lieutenant's Irish duties being the more urgent, he was detained in Ireland; but he kept a ghost in London, if such a description might be excused, and the ghost told him that the case could only be disposed of in Dublin. He then wished to apply to the Head of the Government, and found he was away on sick leave, but was apparently represented by a disconsolate widow, who carried on the business. There was little prospect of a satisfactory answer from that quarter. He, therefore, had no alternative but to bring the case before their Lordships. He fully recognized the devotion of sisters of mercy to the work of piety and charity that they undertook; but they were the active agents of an active Church, and they were disqualified for the position of teachers in mixed schools, to be attended by both Catholic and Protestant children. He had, therefore, given Notice of the Motion which stood in his name.
  Moved that there be laid before this House—
  Copy of Rule 72, of the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland:
  Copy of letter, dated 8th November 1882, from the Earl of Longford to the Lord President of the Council (on appeal from a decision of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) respecting the appointment of a sister of mercy as teacher in a national school open to non-Catholic children:
  Copy of any reply thereto.—(The Earl of Longford.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he was willing to admit the zeal and devotion of sisters of mercy; but it was inconvenient that the rule excluding all persons in religious orders should be evaded in schools attended by a minority of Protestant children who, save at the sacrifice of their religious convictions, would be excluded if the teaching were to be conducted by sisters of mercy. Another reason for excluding these ladies from public institutions was that they did not admit any lay authority; and if
  288
  they were called upon to observe the rules laid down, they referred you to the Bishop or Lady Superior, saying that these were the only authorities they recognized. He had known one case in which two ladies entirely repudiated the authority of the Guardians, who were obliged to get rid of them. In another case some sisters, being allowed access to a prison, desired a warder to call all the prisoners together in order that they might address them. He could not do so. They appealed to the priest, who abused the warder in the public street. The priest, being chaplain of the gaol, on being called to account for this, apologized. This was a proof of the danger which existed, and which could not possibly be got over, because these ladies repudiated all authority except that of their own Superior or Bishop. He hoped the Government would sustain the system of National education, which had worked well, and had kept the schools free from religious acrimony.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, the noble Earl had got rather into cross purposes with Departments of the Government in his correspondence on this question, especially as his noble Friend assumed that there was some appeal from the Education Department in Ireland to the Education Department in England; but that idea, as he had explained in his correspondence with the noble Earl, was absolutely without foundation. There was no sort of connection between the two bodies. When the noble Earl in a manner appealed to the President of the Council, he (the Lord President) told him that the Committee of Council in this country had no right to express an opinion in the matter, or to answer any question regarding the educational administration in Ireland. The case lay within a small compass, and turned upon the interpretation of Rule 72, of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. He did not agree with the noble Earl when he said that the first answer of the Commissioners referring to Rule 55, was a caricature, although it certainly was not a complete answer. The rule had reference to convent schools, and the noble Earl did not appear to be aware that those schools formed no exception whatever to the general system and the general rules of the National Board in Ireland. The rule

  289
  upon which the noble Earl so confidently put an interpretation different from that of the National Board, was one which he could not help thinking the noble Earl had not studied with sufficient care. The 72nd Rule was in these terms—
  "No emblems or symbols of a denominational nature shall be exhibited in the schools during the hours of united instruction, nor will the Commissioners in future grant aid to any schools which exhibit on the exterior of the buildings any such emblems."
  That rule had never been interpreted and never was laid down for the purpose of forbidding a person belonging to a religious order of the Church of Rome to wear a religious dress in a school. It could not bear such an interpretation, because the convent schools were just as much subject to this rule and to every other rule of the Board as other schools in Ireland were; and the convent schools had been in connection with the National Board for the last 50 years—having been brought into connection with that Board by the late Lord Derby when Chief Secretary for Ireland. There could be no doubt that the convent schools, of which there was a large number, had done, and were doing, a vast amount of good to a population substantially Roman Catholic, with a mere sprinkling, here and there, of Protestant children. It was well known that the schools were conducted with great devotion by those excellent and admirable ladies, and it was equally well known that when Protestant children attended such schools, as they did in certain small minorities, they-had the same protection against proselytism which they enjoyed elsewhere. In fact, no case had ever been alleged of any Protestant child being subjected to attempts of that kind to change its faith. If such, danger had been found to be unreal in the case of convent schools, there could, he thought, be very little danger to the faith of any Protestant child who might stray into the workhouse school at Granard. The question raised by the noble Earl was whether the Granard poorhouse school had broken any of the rules of the National Board. The Commissioners of National Education contended, and in this they were supported by the Lord Lieutenant, that the rule which he had read had no application whatever to the matter in hand. Teachers in workhouse schools were appointed by the Guardians them-
  290
  selves, subject to the sanction of the Local Government Board, and their connection with the National Board was simply one of inspection. It was quite clear that the Commissioners had violated no rule, and that in retaining the poor-house school in question in connection with their Board they had acted strictly within their rights. He should be glad to give the noble Earl the Papers moved for if the noble Earl would change the form of his Motion, because, in its present shape, it would not give the facts of the case on both sides.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDdesired to offer a few words in reply. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the Lord Privy Seal, it still remained quite clear to his mind that the compact which had been arrived at on the question had been broken. This rule not only applied to emblems outside the school, but also inside. With regard to the sisters of mercy, he had not, before that evening, heard of any other appointment of a similar character. He maintained that the very conspicuous religious dress of a sister of charity was a denominational emblem, and the rule distinctly forbad the employment of any such emblem. The reason why no special rule had been inserted with respect to religious dress of teachers was that it was thought absolutely impossible that such an appointment could be made. It was a total revolution of the existing system. He should certainly recur to the subject, for, unless a protest was maintained, such appointments would again be made, and it would be said that the previous appointments had been tacitly accepted.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that as a Commissioner of National Education, who had held that office the past quarter of a century, he was of opinion that there had been no breach of compact, or any novelty of practice introduced in this case. Section 72 by no means bore the construction which the noble Earl had sought to place on it. The system now prevailing had prevailed for the past 50 years. When the late Lord Derby, as Chief Secretary, conferred the great boon upon Ireland of a separate religious and a combined secular instruction, thereby avoiding the curse of proselytism which had so long laid upon Ireland, it was agreed that ladies belonging to religious orders should be admitted as teachers. If the construc-

  291
  tion of the noble Earl was adopted there would be an end of conventual education in Ireland. The rule provided against the exhibition of religious emblems or symbols during the hours of united instruction. A nun's dress was not an emblem or symbol. The rule had already been strictly enforced, even to the iconoclastic extent of excluding the emblem of Redemption, the exhibition of which disentitled to a grant. If the noble Earl's wishes were carried out there would be no school in Ireland from which nuns would not be excluded. Could anyone assert that such a result would be in the interests of education? Those schools were admirable and unsurpassed by any schools in existence. His noble Friend on the Cross Benches bad admitted that the schools were excellent.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I said the nuns were excellent teachers of Roman Catholics.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that the adoption of the construction contended for would be a death-blow to the existing system, and would interfere with the performance of services which were beyond mice and beyond praise.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken had drawn a red herring across the trail. No doubt the convent schools were doing excellent work in Ireland; but the noble Lord (Lord O'Hagan) was surely aware that, as a matter of fact, there was considerable difference between the convent schools and others in that country. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Longford) had not alluded to these conventual schools. The question was not the character of the nuns or their teaching, but the construction of Section 72. But if Section 72 was not clear, Section 71 explicitly forbad any teaching which would be known to belong to a particular religious body. He did not wish to be supposed to sympathize with his noble Friend's opinion on the subject. He did not object to the sisters teaching in workhouse schools; but the question now was the construction of rules, and he did not think his noble Friend's argument had been fairly met. There had really been a new departure, and it might be a good departure; but that question was a largo one, and he did not see his way to coining to a final opinion without careful examination.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that all his knowledge upon this subject was derived from listening to that debate; but if he rightly understood the matter, it appeared to him that the whole question lay in a small compass. The noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) relied on one rule, while the other noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick) referred to another rule altogether. It was not, therefore, extraordinary that his noble Friends should have referred to the rule to which the question was directed. If that rule applied to any school connected with the National Board, it applied to every school attached to that Board. Therefore, it would apply to convent schools, some of which appeared to have been long connected with the National Board, and it could not be said that some new construction had now been placed on Rule 72. He (the Lord Chancellor) certainly thought it was paradoxical to say that a nun was an emblem or symbol of a religious denomination, or that, by wearing her usual dress, she was "exhibiting" any such emblem or symbol. Upon that point he agreed with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The only real question must be whether it was expedient or not that in certain cases like the present the teaching of these ladies should be allowed in any national schools. If it was expedient in some conventual schools—which did not seem to be disputed—he was unable, at present, to see why it should be thought improper in other cases, such as this was stated to be, in which there were none but Roman Catholic children.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNwished to point out, in answer to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) did not found his argument exclusively on Rule 27; he objected to the employment of a nun in her conventual dress as a teacher as a departure from the general principle of the National system of education, and quoted Rule 27 as that most pertinent to the case. It was well known there were people who held that the National system, as an undenominational one, was a sham, and this matter would tend to confirm it. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord O'Hagan) could hardly have forgotten that there were certain rules distinctly applicable to con-

  293
  ventual schools, so that the rules applying to the general schools of the country would not affect convent schools. At any rate, he considered that the practice of nuns teaching in the national schools in their conventual garb should not be permitted.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.