Lords Sitting of 1 April 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Freshwater Fisheries Act Amendment (43); City of Norwich (Mousehold Heath) Provisional Order* (35): Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* (36); Isle of Man Harbours (47); Dublin Museum of Science and Art* (38).
Report—Intestates Estates* (46).

FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 43.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 43.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to extend the powers of Boards of Conservators in fishery districts, for the better

  1253
  protection of fresh water fish. The meshes of nets were frequently so small that immature trout and young salmon were destroyed in the operation of catching larger fish, and the Bill was intended to prevent this. It enabled Fishery Boards to make bye-laws for determining the mesh of nets, and the instruments to be used in fishing; it also extended Section 6 of the Fresh Wafer Fisheries Act, 1878, thereby enabling a Board to be formed for the protection of coarse fish. Clause 3 extended the powers of water bailiffs from the districts marked out by the Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1868, and the Salmon Fisheries Acts, 1861 to 1873, to the districts intended to be protected by the Bill. It was not to extend to Scotland or Ireland, or to the counties of Norfolk or Suffolk.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwas understood to say, that the Bill would affect many private rights, and would prevent small fish being caught for bait. He did not wish to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he now gave Notice that it was his intention to propose some limitations in Committee, so as to secure the rights and privileges of those who possessed several fisheries.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to n Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley)
ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.

  (No. 47.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of the Bill was to amend the Acts of 1872 and 1874, as some of the provisions in those Acts bad been found impossible to be carried out. Under the Act of 1874 harbour dues might, with the approval of the Board of Trade, be imposed on all vessels using the harbours of the Island. It had been found impossible to impose these dues, as it would seriously interfere with the trade of vessels calling at the ports of the Island on their way from England to Ireland. If these vessels were charged
  1254
  with dues on their tonnage it would not be worth their while to call, as the amount of freight was often very small, and the result would be that a large amount of shipping would be kept away; altogether from the Island. To remedy this it was proposed by Section of the Bill that when tonnage dues were imposed they should be charged on the cargo landed, and not on the registered tonnage of the vessel. In Section 3 power was taken to levy tolls on docks, piers, or quays. A costly iron pier was lately erected at Ramsay, and was used for landing passengers and as a promenade. A local Act was passed authorizing its construction and contemplating the tolls; but it had been found advisable to have the insular legislation confirmed by Parliament. There were also clauses I relating to ferries. The Bill was warmly supported by the local Legislature, and a Resolution approving it was carried without a dissentient voice.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether a copy of the Report from the School Management Committee of the London School Board in February last can be laid upon the Table of the House; also a copy of the Memorial forwarded to the Education Department relative to the examination of young children in schools.
  Moved for—
  "Copy of the Memorial forwarded to Education Department relative to the examination of young children in schools; with the answer of the Education Department thereto."—(The Earl DE La Warr.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): My Lords, the Memorial to the Education Department can and will be laid upon the Table, together with the answer which the Department has made. With respect to their Report from the School Management Committee the case is different. I have no doubt that the noble Earl is

  1255
  entitled, as a ratepayer, to see it if he pleases, though, if there is any difficulty about it, I shall he glad to assist him in the matter; but it would not be usual to make these Reports Parliamentary Papers.
  Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— INTRODUCTION OF BILL INTO, THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WAVENEYinquired of Her; Majesty's Government, Whether, in consideration of the present system of transacting the Public Business, it might not; be expedient to introduce such Bills as did not interfere with the Privileges of the House of Commons or touch the imposition of taxation, more frequently in the first instance into the House of Lords? The noble Lord said, he asked; this Question because he found in Her Majesty's Speech a large number of Government Bills mentioned, and he supposed that the Government intended to proceed with them during the Session, and carry them through Parliament. They had now arrived at the end of the second month of the Session, and, with the exception of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, they had had no measure of any importance introduced for their consideration in that House. He thought that there were a good many questions brought forward in Her Majesty's Speech which they might fairly claim to have had brought under their consideration in the first instance. The result of the present system was that the Empire was deprived of a part of its legislative force. He did not lay claim to any spirit of prophecy; but no one could shut his eyes to the fact that there was a movement going on around them of unknown forces in unforeseen directions, and he thought that their Lordships would do well not to overlook the tendency of the public mind.
  EARL GRANVILLE,in reply, said, he feared that the answer he was about to give would hardly be satisfactory to his noble Friend, although he quite sympathized with the object of the noble Lord's Question. The fact was that for 25 years, whenever he had been in Office, he had had to answer the same sort of Question at least once, and generally twice in the Session. He never
  1256
  omitted any opportunity of impressing upon his Colleagues the question of whether some particular measure might not be introduced into their Lordships' House. He did not believe that there was any disinclination on the part of his Colleagues to take that course; but, somehow or other, there was always a reason given why it was more advantageous that a particular Bill should be introduced into the other House. He did not think that this was attributable to any prejudice on the part of the present Administration, for he remembered that some 30 years ago Lord Aberdeen, in answering that identical Question, had said that he had heard that Question asked in the House of Lords 50 years before. That being so, he thought there must be some idea that important measures were not so well received when they came down from their Lordships' House as when they were specially introduced into the other House in the first instance.

THE NEW EDUCATION CODE—ARTICLE 107 B.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,in rising to call attention to the Education Code, which is laid on the Table of the House till Wednesday next; and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct that after the word 'Examination' in Article 107 B. of the new Code of Regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education the following words be added 'but infants till they have attained the ago of five years shall be exempted from examination in reading, writing, counting, and needlework,'"
  said, that he must apologize for the short Notice of that Motion, he having only within the last few days become aware of the fact that the time which the document to which he was about to refer lay upon the Table of the House had nearly expired. He wished to ask their Lordships' attention to some few points connected with it. It appeared that the Privy Council derived their authority to issue a document like that upon the Table from the Elementary Education Act of 1870. It was clear that the avowed object of that Act was to give what was usually understood by the term "elementary education," and in the regulations issued by the

  1257
  Education Department of the Privy Council in the Code elementary education was defined to be instruction in reading, writing, arithmetic, and needlework. That seemed to be very well. But what did they find further? There were what were called optional subjects. They were singing, English, geography, elementary science, history, algebra, Euclid, and mensuration, mechanics, chemistry, physics, animal physiology, botany, principles of agriculture, Latin, French, and domestic economy. But not content with that it was also added—
  "Any other subjects, other than those mentioned in this Article, may, if sanctioned by the Department, be taken as a specific subject, provided that a graduated scheme of teaching it be submitted to and approved by the Inspectors."
  He was at a loss to know how schools in which all those subjects were taught could come under the class of elementary schools, as intended by the Elementary Education Act of 1870. It was true those higher subjects were called optional; but if they were to be taught at all, the school must be provided with a class of teachers who were competent to give the instruction. It really amounted to this—that the education given in those schools was sufficient to prepare for any profession—he could not suppose that the Elementary Education Act was intended for that—schools, let it be remembered, which ratepayers were compelled to support, and in which there were children whose parents were receiving an income, in some cases, as they were informed, of.£400 or £500 a-year. Then there was another evil attending that discretionary power vested in the Education Department of the Privy Council. The regulations which were issued periodically were perpetually changing. The Lord President, or the Vice President of the Privy Council, might hold entirely different views about education from their Predecessors in Office, and changes were made. Thus they found the Code of 1882 required less than the Code of 1884—teachers and children were overworked, and serious consequences were the result. The Code of 1882 required that a child should have attended 250 times before being presented for examination by the Inspector; but the Code of 1884 required only that the name of a child should have been on the register for 22 weeks in the year before it was presented for examination. The attend-
  1258
  ances in the 22 weeks might have been comparatively few, and to enable the child to pass the examination great pressure must probably have been used. And as regarded over-pressure and the system of cramming children, often to the injury of their health and that of their teachers, in order that they might pass the examination, there could be no doubt that the system which had been adopted of payment by passes lay at the root of the evil. The object was to gain as large a grant as possible by getting the largest number of children through the examination without reference to anything else. There were other matters connected with that subject to which, at a future time, he desired to ask their Lordships' attention. But there was the important question which he desired to bring before the House, whether the education which was then being carried on at so large a cost to the country, and was becoming a serious burden to local ratepayers, was an education that was based upon sound principles? The Return of the Education Department showed an expenditure for 1883 of £2,846,000 being an increase of £44,000 over 1882. He asked whether, with that enormous cost, they were acting upon principles which would benefit the moral and social condition of the people? The principle of the Education Act seemed to exclude that. The dread of religious education had led to the consequent exclusion, also, of moral education. The Inspectors of schools were forbidden "to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects" given in schools; and could moral teaching be separated from religious? An Inspector did not inquire whether a child even knew the Ten Commandments, or what the Bible was; and it was asserted that since the passing of the Education Act of 1870 many young persons, from ignorance of the Bible, had arrived at mature years unfit to be sworn in a Court of Justice. Previous to the Act of 1870 it was indispensable to the obtaining of a Government grant that the Bible should at least be read. He might quote the words of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, who stated that—
  "In one large town of this country there were more than 12,000 children in Board schools who receive no week-day religious instruction of any kind."
  He left that question, then, with the

  1259
  hope that it might meet with their Lordships' serious attention. On referring to Article 107, it would be found that all scholars—that was including infants—must be presented to the Inspectors for examination, and that this was carried out was shown by the Reports of School Boards. He believed he might mention the London Board, for the Reports of which he had that day asked. He found it stated—
  "That the Committee were of opinion that the examination of infants in reading, writing, counting, and needlework should be discontinued until they have reached their fifth year."
  And that—
  "A large proportion of the time of infants between three and five be devoted to healthful recreation, lively occupations, games, and physical exercises."
  A statement relative to this question was recently made, as reported in the public Press, by Dr. Forbes Winslow, whose name must be well known to their Lordships. He said—
  "As one who had had many opportunities of observation, he was able to bear testimony to the direful effect of the over-pressure which was going on at the present moment in ruining the health of young children, and that the lunacy statistics were a sufficient evidence of the evils resulting from endeavours to force into the brain knowledge which it was incapable of holding."
  The view of the question which he had stated seemed to be consistent with common sense, and he hoped the noble Lord opposite would not object to the Amendment in the Code which he now begged to move.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that after the word 'Examination' in Article 107 B. of the now Code of Regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education the following words be added 'but infants till they have attained the ago of five years shall be exempted from examination in reading, writing, counting, and needlework.'"—(The EARL De La Warr.)
  LORD NORTONsaid, the noble Earl had seized the last moments allowed for criticism of the annual re-edition of the Education Code. He pointed out that to-morrow was the last day on which this now edition of the Code would lie on the Table of the House, after which its fresh alterations would become law. There was not a single instance in which the annual edition had not included
  1260
  alterations of a character to make that which was already complicated enough still more complicated from year to year. Each edition had been recommended to Parliament as intended to contain the last changes on the subject. He agreed generally with the criticisms made by the noble Earl. He had brought to notice, in his speed, one particular effect of the working of the present Code. Any reasonable man, he thought, would consider it a defect in this Code that it attached educational grants to the intellectual performances of children of three years old. There was no country in which such an absurdity was adopted. In Germany—a country which was always favourably compared with ours in educational matters—such a thing was not attempted. Infants of this tender age were left either to nurses or crèches, or infant asylums, or to little schools kept at private cost. A public receptacle for the care of children three years old was little more than a foundling hospital. It was taking babies away from the care of their mothers, and placing them at schools at the public expense under the pretence of giving them education. But this was only one of many bad features imseparable from a system of education based on a radically false principle—namely, that of providing for national education by the payment of the teachers by grants upon detailed results of performances in various kinds of instruction. He could hardly conceive a more ridiculous scheme for national education than ours, which proposed to give 1s. grant for every child taught needlework; 1s. for singing, or 6d. if taught by ear;1d. for elementary subjects, among which the art of reading was enumerated as a subject; then passed on to higher grants for higher subjects still as elementary. These schools were supposed to be elementary, yet elementary subjects were paid for much lower than subjects not elementary. Thus, 2s. were given as a grant for what were called class subjects, and 4s. for specific subjects including science and foreign languages. Now, he wished to impress upon their Lordships that nowhere else in the world did a school grant system like that of England exist. He believed that the noble Viscount (Viscount Sherbrooke), whom he did not See in his place at that moment, was the author of this very quaint

  1261
  system. The noble Viscount had taken, it would seem, a commercial view of the subject. The idea was a fear of value not being secured by uncertain tests of the teachers' work and of the teaching paid for. There was a wish, to secure a quid Pro quo—to ascertain that they should get their money's worth. But he should like to point out that the quo meant the expenditure of millions for the general education of the working classes; the quid was only specified performances by specified groups of children, which was anything but the national education wanted. The complaints which were now being made, not of over-education, but of over-pressure in bad education, sprang entirely and necessarily from the action of this false principle. It was an obstacle to all that was worthy of the name of education. The teacher had to make an income to pay his last year's bills by getting up some of the children to earn for him, as the phrase was, the highest grants, and the highest grants were attached to the highest subjects. For this, teachers and pupil-teachers were straining, and children were worked over hours, and were crammed instead of being educated. Those children who could not be so crammed, or backward scholars, were neglected as unprofitable earners of grants. Most irrelevant answers were made to these complaints—such as that there was no over-expenditure, that room was still wanted for more children, and that a few richer children wanted higher education, who were taking the poorer children's bread. But the question was not of too much education, but of the system of school-managers farming little children for grants on sham education and calling it a national system.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he remembered, as a former member of the London School Board, that a number of children under five years of age were sent to school simply because their parents were away working, and these children mostly passed their time lying on the floor. The by-laws provided for the education of children between the ages of five and 13 years. That was quite right, though in some cases five might be somewhat too early; but the present proposal of individual examination of infants under five seemed to him to be extraordinary, and therefore he trusted some explanation would be given of it. He could see
  1262
  no advantage of children under five years of age being presented to Her Majesty's Inspectors for examination. Such a course was not only objectionable and useless, but it was positively mischievous to the health and intellect of tiny infants.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the discussion that had taken place was a striking illustration of the way in which certain noble Lords in that House travelled from the Notice of Motion under discussion. He had innocently come down prepared to deal merely with the question relating to infants under the age of five, and whether they ought or ought not to be examined. But two of the noble Lords had travelled over a number of questions that arose under the Code. It never occurred to him that these would be started. The noble Earl had raised the question whether there should or should not be a Code at all, or very nearly that, and, if any Code, what Code; whether pay meats by results were or were not good; whether all the world was right or the noble Lord. It was strange that the noble Lord had not discovered that the Code introduced by Lord Spencer and Mr. Mundella last year, and altered this year, as the result of experience, by the Circular of Mr. Mundella, was entirely in the noble Lord's direction. It was no doubt true that the Education Department were not able to go far on the same road with the noble Lord. With respect to the treatment of the younger infants, he was in hearty sympathy with the noble Lord, who was preaching on this subject to those who were already converted. His Motion was an anachronism. It might have applied to past Codes, but it did not to the present. The noble Earl did not I appear to understand the effect of the existing Code. It gave no individual I grant to children in infant schools, and it did not require the individual examination of infants under five.
  EARL DE LA WARRremarked that the Code required that the infants should "present themselves for examination."
  LORD, CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)repeated that this did not mean individual examination. There was no obscurity on this point among those who administered the Code. It merely meant that the infants should attend, and that the Inspector should

  1263
  have an opportunity of seeing them and ascertaining whether they had been properly attended to. That was a necessary provision, unless they were prepared to allow the teacher to work his own sweet will; but it was only a muster, and there was no attempt at individual examination. The Department and the Inspectors knew quite well what was meant, and that it did not imply an individual test. The payments in infant schools were fixed grants on attendance, and there was also a general merit grant earned by the teacher upon the general character of his school; but there was no unwholesome stimulus to earn a grant upon the results of the examination of these infants. Whether there was or was not an objection to the system of payment by results, it could not arise in the case of these infant schools. There was no such system in those schools. There were some 400,000 little children below the age of five in the schools of this country earning, no doubt, a very important contribution for the schools. He supposed the noble Earl did not wish there should be no inquiry or inspection as to whether those children were neglected. The inspection under the present Code was only of a general character, and he could hardly think the noble Earl could desire that those children should be absolutely ignored by Her Majesty's Inspectors, considering the large amount of public money paid in respect of them. The noble Earl might rest assured that the provisions of the new Code need afford him no anxiety on this particular point, and that there was no reason for any such change as that proposed in the Motion.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he believed it was evident that individual examinations had really taken place. What he asked was that such a practice should be discontinued.
  LORD CARLINGFOED (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it was merely a matter of fact that nothing was to be earned by individual examinations. A particular Inspector might think it his duty to examine the children one by one; and there had been a habit among Inspectors—in the belief of the Education Department carried beyond the necessities of the case—to insist on that kind of individual examination, although it earned no individual grant. It was,
  1264
  however, by no means desired that that habit should be encouraged.
  Motion (by leave of the House) With drawn.
  House adjourned at quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.