Lords Sitting of 27 June 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Representation of the People* (159); Licensing Act (1872) Amendment* (160); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4)* (161); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 7) * (162); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (163); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (164); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8)*(165); Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14)*, (166); Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 15) * (167); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order* (168); Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* (169).
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (141); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (132); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11)* (156); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12)* (142); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13)* (143); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) * (136); Tramways Provisional Orders* (150); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * (151); Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order* (148); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * (149); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (137); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2) * (138); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) * (139); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6)* (140); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) * (144); Newcastle Chapter (130).
Committee—Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment* (154).
Committee—Report—National Debt (Conversion of Stock)* (145).
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (127).
Third Reading—Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (128); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (126); Fisheries (Ireland) * (77); School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) * (129), and passed.
Withdrawn — Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland)* (146).

PUBLIC HEALTH—OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA AT TOULON, FRANCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to ask a Question of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether the Government had any information to impart in regard to the outbreak and spread of cholera in the South of France? said, he wished very much to impress upon the Government that there were certain things they were enabled to do; and particularly the necessity that they should take measures of precaution. An Act was passed last year, which gave very extensive powers to the authorities for the prevention of diseases; and he had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government intended to put those powers into force. But, if he remembered rightly, the Act was only in continuance for one year, and it expired in September next. It was, therefore, important that it should he renewed; and he would like to know, not that he had any great doubt about it, whether it was intended to renew it? The second point which he wished to draw the attention of the Government to was the importance of urging upon local authorities to take measures, such as the use of disinfectants, and other means that might be considered desirable, for the prevention of the disease. He also wished, lastly, to put it to the Government as to whether it was their intention to send out some qualified medical man, in the nature of a Commissioner, to inquire into and report upon the exact character of the disease, about which there seemed to be a good deal of difference of opinion. It was desirable, at all events, to know whether the disease was Asiatic cholera, or whether it was a disease due to local causes.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have to state, in reply to the first part of the Question of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask your Lordships to renew the Act of last year to which he has referred, and which expires, as he says, in September next. In reply to the second part, I have to state that great precautions have been taken by the Government in the shape of orders and instructions issued to sanitary authorities. Under those regulations, an officer of the

  1517
  Customs may detain a vessel on its arrival in England, if he suspects it to be infected with cholera. He must give notice of the detention to the sanitary authority of the place of detention, who must thereupon cause the ship to be visited and examined by their medical officer of health or some other medical man. Moreover, without any action on the part of the Customs officer, the medical officer of health may visit and examine any ship which he has reason to believe is infected with cholera, or has come from a place infected with cholera. If, after his examination, the medical officer of health certifies that the ship is infected, no one can leave it until he has been examined by the medical officer of health; and, should he be found to be suffering from cholera, he must be sent to an hospital. Doubtful cases may be detained on board, or at an hospital, until it is ascertained whether the disease is cholera. Provision is also made in the regulations for the disinfection of articles on the ship. As regards the question whether a Government official should be sent to Toulon to report on the outbreak of cholera there, the Local Government Board think that at present there is a want of evidence to show that it is more than an outbreak of severe and excessive diarrhœa engendered by the insanitary conditions of the place. That, so far, is satisfactory. Moreover, it is stated that Drs. Brouardel and Proust have been commissioned by the French Government to make inquiry as to the disease and the measures which are taken to prevent its spread. It may be anticipated that the Report of these gentlemen will contain the information required. In these circumstances, it appears premature at present for the Board to determine whether they should recommend the Treasury to incur the expense of sending an Inspector to make special inquiries.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was much obliged for the answer of the noble Lord; but he must express his great disappointment at the concluding observation—that the Local Government Board did not think fit to send out a Commissioner to inquire into it on the ground of the expense. He protested against any such conclusion as unworthy; and as the outbreak was, apparently, a very serious matter, he hoped the Go-
  1518
  vernment, or, at any rate, the Local Government Board, would give it their earnest consideration.
  LORD CARRINGTONsaid, that he would bring the recommendation of the noble Earl under the attention of the President of the Local Government Board.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL—DEBATE OF TUESDAY, JUNE 24.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he must ask permission to be allowed to make a personal explanation. Last Tuesday, when the House was considering the Bill for the Protection of Young Girls, he stated that the noble and learned Earl on the Front Bench (Earl Cairns) had no right to contend that the House was bound by the compromise arrived at by the Select Committee fixing the age of consent at 16; because he himself, on one occasion, voted in favour of an Amendment proposed in Committee by the noble Lord (Lord Mount Temple), to raise the age of consent from 16 to 17. He (the Earl of Milltown) was then contradicted by the noble and learned Earl; but he found, on reference to Hansard, that the noble and learned Earl did last year, when the Bill was then before the House, support that Amendment both by speech and vote, and that the Amendment was also supported by two other Members of the Select Committee, the Bishop of London and Lord Norton, making, with the Mover, no less than four Members of the Committee who had thrown the compromise to the winds.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he had, on Tuesday last, understood the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Milltown) to refer to the Committee stage of the Bill in this, the present, Session; and he pointed out that when the noble Lord (Lord Mount Temple) proposed an Amendment to raise the age to 17 years, he (Earl Cairns) recommended its withdrawal, on the ground that the age of 16 had been fixed as a compromise, and should be accepted. The noble Earl was, however, quite correct in stating that when, last Session, the same noble Lord brought forward an Amendment with the same object, he (Earl Cairns) did support it.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS—OVER-PRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to direct attention to the Elementary Education Acts of 1870 and 1876, as now enforced by the Education Department of the Privy Council, with special reference to over-pressure in schools under Government inspection; and to the increasing burdens imposed upon ratepayers for the maintenance of board schools; also, to bring under the notice of the House the present position of voluntary schools, said, that, while he asked their Lordships to recall to their recollection the circumstances which attended the passing of the Act of 1870, he wished it to be understood that he was not objecting to the principle of the Act, but only to the manner in which it was put in operation by the Education Department. In their Report the Commissioners appointed in 1861 to inquire into the state of Elementary Education stated that satisfactory progress had been made, and that the number of children in schools had increased from 500,000 to 2,500,000; and there was no expression of opinion in the Report as to the want of school boards, or to the want of a higher Standard in elementary education. He thought that that Report showed that there was no great demand for the system introduced under the Education Acts. The Act of 1870, as worked by the Education Department, was oppressive, in that it required a larger amount of work, and, consequently, caused a large amount of pressure to be put not only upon the scholars, but also upon the teachers, which pressure affected the children and the teachers both in mind and in body. He would not detain their Lordships by quoting from many of the numerous Reports which had recently appeared from great medical authorities on the subject of over-pressure in elementary schools; and he had no doubt their Lordships were aware that Dr. Crichton Browne had reported, and that very ably, on the subject at the request of Mr. Mundella. It was, he thought, much to be regretted that the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) had not put the House in possession of that very able Report; but, happily, they
  1520
  had the words of Dr. Crichton Browne himself, in a letter which appeared in The Times of the 16th of June, in which he said that his Report contained strong evidence that over-pressure existed in. elementary schools. The Education Department might have had their own reasons for not making the Report public; but when Dr. Crichton Browne said he was requested by Mr. Mundella to visit some schools, and to report to him as to any defects he might discover in the present system, he (Earl De La Warr) was at a loss to understand how it could be said that that Report "in no proper sense originated with the Education Department." Speaking of the increase of headaches among children, Dr. Crichton Browne said—
  "Headaches in children used to be rare, and were regarded as almost always importing organic disease of the brain; but they are now of daily occurrence."
  He further stated—
  "By far the largest mortality from this disease (hydrocephalus) is among infants under five years of age, in whom education has not begun; but it is a significant fact, to which attention has not hitherto been directed, that during the last 10 years, when education has been so much extended, an enormous and disproportionate increase has taken place in the number of deaths ascribed to it in the education and post-education periods."
  Numerous instances were reported of failing sight in consequence of overwork; and what was said with reference to scholars applied in a hardly less degree to teachers also, especially pupil teachers. Dr. Pridgin Teale, President of the Health Department at Leeds, said—
  "The nation can hardly realize what is the life of these pupil teachers. Apprenticed to their calling at the age of 13 or 14, they spend five and a-half hours a-day in the fatiguing work of drilling little children in their lessons, and in trying to maintain their attention."
  Besides the overwhelming testimony of medical men to the ill-effects of overwork upon scholars and teachers, similar evidence was given by managers of schools, masters, and others. He would refer to one or two cases only among many. One writer said—
  "Most of us are suffering from the strain put upon us by the amount of work demanded by the New Code."
  Another master wrote—
  "As things are going on at present this high pressure will be the cause of infinite mischief to teachers and scholars, not, perhaps, now, but in a

  1521
  few years. My opinion is, that over-pressure must continue as long as the Department continues to hold out money prizes for the host-crammed children."
  A master in Manchester said—
  "I believe the health generally of teachers and scholars to he seriously affected; the eyesight of our scholars is palpably suffering, and I do not believe the mental condition to he nearly as good as it was."
  The cause of the evils here alluded to was not the Act itself, but the manner in which it was enforced by the Education Department. The requirements were too great, and they were year by year increasing. Nearly every Standard in Schedule I. of the present Code showed increased requirements when, compared with the Code of 1881. Before the introduction of the New Code, the full class subjects grant was paid, if 50 per cent of the scholars passed; whereas it was now required that 75 per cent should pass. There was another change in the last Code, which was important as affecting over-pressure—namely, that every child whose name had been on the books for 22 weeks must be presented for examination. In the former Code it was required that a child should have attended at least 250 times before being presented for examination. Were they to go on, year by year, increasing the difficulties which children and masters had to encounter? They must remember that the Education Act of 1870, under which the Education Department exercised their authority, was an Act "to provide for elementary education in England and Wales." But that appeared to be lost sight of by the Department, for what did they find in the Code of Regulations recently issued? Education was offered for almost any purpose or profession. It was true there were, first, elementary subjects—reading, writing, arithmetic, and needlework; but there followed what were called class-subjects, and what were they? They found among these subjects singing, English, geography, all of which were good things. Then they came to elementary science and history. Then followed what were called "specific subjects"—algebra, Euclid, mensuration, mechanics, chemistry, physics, animal physiology, botany, and principles of agriculture; including also Latin, French, and domestic economy. He asked whether that could be called elementary educa-
  1522
  tion? Why should these subjects be taught at the expense of compulsory rates? He should really be glad to know in what sense schools which taught these subjects could be considered elementary schools? He did not say that there should be no such schools; but he held that schools which existed under an Act of Parliament intended to promote elementary education, and which were in a great measure supported by compulsory rates, and were intended for the poorer classes, ought not to be giving an education fit only for secondary schools, and involving an expenditure far above what was required for primary schools. Now, in order to attain to the higher Standards, not only in elementary subjects, but also in what were called class and specific subjects, more work was necessary both for teachers and scholars, and over-pressure was the result. The Act of Parliament, as he had said, was not so much to blame. It was the Education Department, who put on the pressure, either through Codes of Regulations or by means of Inspectors. Every individual child had to pass an examination by an Inspector, before a grant of money could be made for that child; and, in fact, the payments to the school depended entirely upon the results of examination. Their Lordships would easily see what the consequence must be. The masters, the managers, and the ratepayers, in the case of a board school, were all interested in the children gaining as high a percentage of marks as possible, in order that the school might obtain the highest Government grant. It was, therefore, no secret that children were frequently kept over-hours at work, when the day of examination was approaching, in order that they might pass well. This was the evil at the bottom of the whole system. It was the making Government grants in aid of schools dependent upon the results of individual examination—in other words, the holding out of money prizes for the best-crammed children. What had been well described as the "epidemic of examinations which has overrun the country" had laid its hand upon the Education Department. Before leaving this part of the subject, he must ask their Lordships to notice one other cause of pressure. When once children had been placed in a certain Standard, they must every year be raised

  1523
  to the next Standard, without any reference to capacity or ability. It did not follow that a child who could do an addition sum could be brought without difficulty to do a rule-of-three sum. But, somehow or other, the child must be brought to do the rule-of-three sum, or the school would lose some of the Government grant; and pressure must therefore be applied in some way or another. There was one more fertile source of pressure—the practice of giving lessons to be done after the hours of school. It was not an absolute requirement; but, owing to the mode in which money grants were made, it became almost a necessity. Happily, however, it had recently been decided in the Court of Queen's Bench that home lessons could not be enforced. He passed on now to another point, the sources from which a large portion of the elementary schools were maintained. There was, first, the grant of the public money, which, as he understood, was, for the coming year, over £3,000,000. That was a very large sum; and, as it seemed to him in many respects, very lavishly expended. Then there was a large sum raised by rates for board schools—upwards of £1,500,000, and a considerable sum for voluntary schools. Many of their Lordships doubtless knew that the school rates were becoming a very heavy burden to ratepayers. When the Education Act enforcing them was passed, a rate of 3d. in the pound was the amount generally named; but now the rate exceeded, in most places, double that sum, and oven more. In London be was informed it was 8d. or 9d., and was expected to be still higher. He held in his hand a statement, which he believed to be correct, that in 189 places the School Board rate was 1s. and upwards; in 214 from 9d to 1s.; in 519 from 6d. to 9d.: and in 610 from 3d. to 6d. That was the natural consequence of the expensive system carried on and encouraged by the Education Department—expensive buildings, high salaries, which were a necessity for the class of teaching now given, and many other costly items, which we were told in 12 years had raised the sum expended by the London School Board to about £12,000,000. It might be said that the ratepayers were doing it themselves. That was true to some extent, and, no -doubt, they had themselves to blame;
  1524
  but the fault rested not wholly with them. The Education Department applied a stimulus through Inspectors, and by offering large grants of public money. He ventured to urge that an elementary school, which was in a great measure supported by rates, should confine itself to elementary subjects. If more was wanted, let there be schools of another class which were not supported by compulsory rates. There was one other matter which he could not pass over without notice. It was that of the large number of infants brought into public elementary schools under the regulations of the Education Department. It was not a little startling to hear a statement made a short time ago by Mr. Mundella that there were 400,000 children between the ages of three and five years in elementary schools; and though it appeared in the Education Act of 1876 that "a child means a child between the ages of five and 14 years," yet the Education Department encouraged the attendance of children who could scarcely speak or walk, and, what was more, threw upon the ratepayers, aided by grants of public money, the burden of providing teachers and accommodation for them in schools which were, in fact, nurseries and not schools. There was no country in Europe where the children were taken into primary schools before the age of six. He had in his hand a statement from the chief manager of a large school numbering 1,235 children, in which there were 146 infants under the age of five years. It was added—
  "Every infant, oven the youngest, is liable to be examined, if the Inspector chooses to do so. … Those under five have not been hitherto examined; but we are required to present every child for examination between the ages of five and seven."
  He would refer now, for a moment, to the position of voluntary schools. He need hardly remind their Lordships that there was a considerable number of persons in this country who had a conscientious objection to schools where religious instruction was not given, or given only in a very limited and indefinite manner; and that was not confined to one class of persons only; it was found to a great extent in all classes, and not the least in the poorer class. He might adopt the words of the Royal Commission to which he had before referred—

  1525
  "That it is placed beyond all doubt that the great body of the population are determined that religion and education must be closely connected."
  The semblance of religion in board schools did not satisfy the desire for Christian instruction. The proof of that lay in the fact of there being such a large number of voluntary schools. Now, he thought it clear that the development of the present system of board schools was not the legitimate result of the Education Act of 1870, which was not intended to supplant voluntary schools, but rather to supplement them. The action, however, of the Education Department tended to suppress them. Encouragement was given to pro-occupy districts with school boards, offering special advantages of a higher education, which voluntary schools could not afford; and he believed that prizes and scholarships were sometimes offered in board schools, while voluntary schools were excluded from this advantage. He was at a loss to know why the Education Department should make it their aim to encourage the board school to the detriment of the voluntary school, unless it was for the reason that distinct religious teaching was given in the one, while in the other, if any at all was given, it was of a decidedly negative character. And what was the result? Parents who desired to have their children educated as Christian children could not do so where there was only a board school, and that applied to a large number of persons in this country. It applied not only to members of the Church of England, but, in like manner, to Roman Catholics, to the numerous body of Wesleyans, and to all who believed that religious instruction was an essential part of education. And thus the school-board system was unjust in its present operation, inasmuch as those who, from conscientious motives, could not send their children to board schools, were, nevertheless, compelled to pay rates in support of them, while they were, at the same time, maintaining voluntary schools. Was there no way of meeting that difficulty? Surely, some consideration should be shown to those who were supporting efficient schools, and yet were compelled to pay rates for board schools. It was a matter which deserved the consideration of the Education Department, whether exemption from the payment of rates, or some
  1526
  other mode of relief, could not be granted to those who were maintaining voluntary schools carried on under the rules of the Education Department, and where the children passed well through the examinations of Her Majesty's Inspectors.
  LORD NORTON, in rising to call special attention to the effects of paying for education by grants on results, said, that the system was at the root of all the complaints which had been made with regard to over-pressure in connection with national education in this country. Provision for the education of all young children, under all circumstances, by a fixed scale of payment oil specific results of teaching was not only absurd in itself, but a unique idea which had occurred to no other country but England, and one which could stand the test of neither reason nor experience. It was, in his opinion, high time it was reconsidered. Mr. Mundella's test of its success, in moving the Education Estimates a few days ago, was that one-sixth of the population had been brought under the system. The Vice President's argument only proved, however, that the limits as to the age and class of children to be educated at the public expense, which Parliament had laid down, had been largely exceeded. One-sixth of the population must include all children of every class within school age. The right hon. Gentleman said also, in speaking of the expenditure, he omitted the local and voluntary contributions and the many binds of schools for poor children which came under the Estimates of other Departments; so that the sum of £3,000,000, which he asked the House to vote, was not half the amount of the public money expended on the education of children. The principle of payment by results was first started in the Revised Code of 1862. It was recommended, in order that good proof might be obtained of teachers doing their duty, and for the purpose of securing to the taxpayers a quid pro quo for their money. A general inspection of the recognized schools was thought too vague, and the individual examination of every child by minute and identical regulations was substituted. There was no higher authority upon this subject than the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). In a recent letter the right rev. Prelate pointed out that when he was engaged

  1527
  in a very special inspection of schools before the Revised Code was brought out, he thought he found great negligence of grounding in the teaching, so that children in the top classes, pretending to advanced things, often did not understand the very elements of the subjects in which they were supposed to have been so highly educated. Other children were found leaving the school from the lower classes, not having risen at all. The right rev. Prelate was of opinion that payment by results had mitigated these evils. But he qualified his approval of the system most materially, by confessing that it had been drawn too tight, and that schools had suffered and were suffering from it. The right rev. Prelate stated that the Code compelled all scholars to learn at the same pace—an evenness of progress which was simply impossible; and, although he allowed that Mr. Mundella had been relaxing the system, he had not gone far enough. The right rev. Prelate further said that he constantly saw schools dislocated by an attempt to keep to the Standards. The sum of all this he (Lord Norton) took to be that though payment by results might have diminished from negligence, it was a Procrustean method, too rigid for a system which required for any realization of its object—that of training all sorts of children's faculties and characters—freedom to the teacher, adaptation to every case and circumstance, and independence of resources to carry on the entire work. Mr. Mundella informed some complainants that over-pressure was not the fault of the Code, but of its administration. "Be content," said he, "with small grants, and there need be no over-pressure." But as long as the income of a school is made up of grants on exhibited samples of work, the school will exert itself to the utmost to earn grants. Earning had become the usual phrase for the school administration and the test of educational success. Every fresh edition of the Code was appreciated by the amount of grants that might be earned by it. Teachers were valued by their earnings. Children were cared for in proportion to their grant-earning capacity. School-books were advertised as calculated to earn the Code grants. National education had become degraded to a lottery of Government prizes. The point for
  1528
  which he contended was, however, being gradually conceded; but the system was so slow in its process of reform, that he feared it would leave permanent injury to National education behind it. In recent editions of the Code, the "merit grant," and payment on average attendance, were steps towards the more rational system of all other countries. However, the Revised Instructions to Inspectors, just circulated, admitted almost the whole of his argument. These minute Instructions were the climax of official complication. They carried precision down to the description of large hand, as writing three-eighths of an inch in height. If this system were to be continued, and such minute directions laid down, they might supersede personal inspection by some mechanical invention. He would specify some of the terms of the Revised Instructions. Examinations were to be by samples of classes, and not of all children individually. Again, as to "class subjects," Inspectors were simply to say whether a grant should be made in them or not. "Specific subjects" were said to be intended for a few only, and therefore only to be attempted in the larger schools. This was an admission that the 4th Schedule was absurd in village schools, and that rigid Standards were altogether absurd for all schools alike. The leading journal, with its instinct of the tendency of opinion, observed on these instructions that—
  "The bold abandonment of individual examination on certain subjects, as now distinctly avowed, cannot fail both to save the Inspector's time, and to relieve the burden that weighs heavily on some children's minds,"
  —in other words, they would relieve over-pressure. The Times also found in the limit put on specific subjects—
  "A plain discouragement of pretentious pursuits of higher subjects."
  In these admissions, he found confirmation of his repeated representations. What system of school-support, then, should take the place of abandoned payment on results? They could not do better than follow the terms of the new Government Instructions. The Inspectors should be experts, capable of going frequently and unexpectedly into schools, as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) did, and examining samples of classes, noticing the mutual bearing of the children and the teachers, to report

  1529
  simply whether each school was fit to continue on the recognized list for public payment or not. After due warning, a badly-reported school would cease to be recognized until efficiency became restored. This would terminate the fraud of educating by way of making "earnings;" the teachers would have fixed incomes with prizes for extra good service; and they would be free to exercise each their special talents in the best care and training of every child. They would cease making their pupils only a means to increase a precarious income. The further fraud of underhand attempts to stretch elementary education over higher science would lose both its incentive and its means, and pretentious pursuits would not occupy the place of elementary instruction. School Boards were obliged to have their own Inspectors, who reported, not in got-up results, but on the general features of education. One of them had just expressed an opinion that the fixed annual examinations are a fatal mistake. In one of his Reports, Mr. Matthew Arnold had said that—
  "A decline of intellectual life was distinctly due to the mechanical mode of examination introduced by the Revised Code."
  It was not jealousy of popular education that suggested these misgivings; but, on the contrary, it was a desire to save the people from the falsehood of an educational system which mistook a cram of scraps of evanescent knowledge for training the faculty of acquiring knowledge usefully.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in asking the Lord President of the Council, Whether he will sanction grants to schools belonging to school boards which are evading the law, as recently declared by the Law Courts respecting compulsory home lessons, by compelling by regulation the attendance of children beyond the statutory hours of attendance at school? said, that he should not have been surprised if the noble Lord the Lord President had objected to his Question, as implying that he would usurp that dispensing power, the claim to which had been one of the principal causes of James II. losing his Throne, but that the Lord President and the Education Office were constantly straining the law. Last Session the Lord President maintained the legality of home lessons; and the Education Office
  1530
  was now, as at Staines, enforcing the spending of the ratepayers' money for children of the age of from 3 to 5, although the Act of 1870 only gave authority over children of from 5 to 13, and they had no right to provide Kindergärtens at the public expense. Since the legal discussion against home lessons, the Keighley and the Bradford School Boards had increased the hours of attendance in school; but the Bradford School Board had thought better of it, and decided to comply with the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. The tide of over-pressure was rising, and now children and teachers were no longer the only victims to it, for to-day the newspapers had announced the unfortunate death of an assistant School Inspector, owing to overwork.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton) had referred to a letter of his, he should like to make a few observations on the question before the House. The noble Lord thought that payment by results had had a bad effect upon the schools, and that it was likely to have a still worse effect as time went on. He (the Bishop of Exeter) could only say, as far as his experience went, that it had seemed to him, and it still seemed to him, that the plan of payment by results very greatly improved schools. It greatly improved schools in two important particulars. In the first place, before the introduction of payment by results, there was, in a great many cases, a neglect of the more stupid boys. Very little pains were taken with those boys; because the master found that, taking the school altogether and presenting it to the Inspector for examination, the labour he had to spend in working up those duller children never brought him credit, and, consequently, never affected his personal interest very largely. In the second place, there was a tendency to neglect the lower classes; because the Inspectors generally confined their judgment of the school to what they saw of the upper classes. The system of payment by results produced two things—it led the master to see, as far as possible, that every boy, even the dullest, should be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic; and, in the second place, it compelled the master to look to the younger children, because these children were compelled to be individually examined quite as much

  1531
  as the children more favourably situated. A great change had come over the condition of schools in consequents of this system of examination, and in consequence of the method in use of payment by results. The system, however, required very careful watching. If they put a man under the system of payment by piece-work, instead of payment by day-work, there was a tendency to sacrifice the man to the work. The end of the matter was they made the man a mere grinder at one class of work; while, in the meanwhile, he himself was seriously hurt as a man, because he was confined in his scope, and his whole mind was made mechanical. If they made the master grind at one class of things, and nothing else, there was a tendency to make his mind mechanical. In the long run, he unfitted himself for the work he had to do, and that was the objection to the mode of payment by results. It had to be carefully watched; but he thought they were very far from, the time when it would either be wise or safe to give up the system. There was another thing in the Code which required careful modification, and that was the rigidity of the Standards. If he were a schoolmaster, he should be perpetually fretting against the rules by which the promotion of boys from Standard to Standard was regulated. The master had to satisfy the Inspector that he had made the right promotion; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) maintained that the master ought to have the organization of the school and the promotion of the boys in his own hands. He admitted, however, that a great deal had been done in relaxation of this rigidity, and he was not at all inclined to complain that the Code had done mischief on that score. He thought, however, its working should be carefully watched. With regard to over-pressure, of which a great deal had been recently heard, he was afraid that there was some overpressure; but he did not very well see how it could be avoided. But few children suffered from it, the chief sufferers being the pupil teachers and the masters. In making these remarks, however, he, at the same time, confessed that he thought the present system was working very well, and that all that was wanted was that the authorities should be kept alive to the necessity of making constant improvements. He could not fol-
  1532
  low the noble Lord opposite in saying that payment by results ought to be given up as a principle. Of two things he felt sure. It would be a mistake to give up the system of individual examination. He advocated a closer and more thorough inspection; because he was of opinion that mere watching of a school was not sufficient for a thorough and reliable carrying out of the Act.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, two years ago, he had said that the school system in England was in great danger of producing injurious effects on the rising generation. That he was not mistaken in the matter was proved by the fact that the complaints that had been made with regard to over-pressure appeared to be well-founded. He could not doubt that the over-pressure of children was very general, and still more general among pupil teachers, who were drawn from the wage-earning class to a far larger extent than he would wish to see. A distinguished physiologist had given him a reason for its telling with peculiar severity on children of the wage-class. The same wonderful transmission of hereditary faculties, natural or acquired, which made the pointer puppy to point and the retriever puppy to retrieve almost spontaneously, enabled the children of those who for generations had had the advantage of high culture to master abstract reasoning, such as involved in the study of grammar or algebra, with far more facility and at a much earlier age. And yet grammar was inflicted upon the poor children in our elementary schools at a very early age. He greatly rejoiced at the two recent decisions of the Judges; the one declaring that a schoolmaster had no legal authority to impose home-lessons, which were a grievous hardship to children in the thousands of cases where the whole family had only one room to work in, eat in, and sleep in, but which were in many other cases reasonable and desirable; and the other that the necessities of the child's family were a reasonable cause for its absence from school. He could not agree with his noble Friend opposite (Lord Norton) as to the evil of payment by results, and he was confirmed by the opinion of the right rev. Prelate; but he thought that grants should only be given for really elementary subjects. He was not at all opposed to poor children of extra-

  1533
  ordinary and exceptional industry and ability being enabled to prosecute higher studies; but that should be done by means of scholarships to higher schools. It was not desirable that every school all over the country should be capable of teaching children up to the VIth and VIIth Standards, for this entailed a great share of the master's time and attention being devoted to the two or three clever children in his school. If a middle-class parent wanted his child, of no exceptional ability, to learn Latin and algebra, and so forth, why should he not pay for it? Why were the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country to go out of their way to provide education in these subjects for those who could well afford its cost? As a student of, and believer in, political economy, he believed that they ought to adhere more strictly in the matter of education to the general principle that a fair price was to be paid for the article, and that they ought not to help a man to obtain advantages which he could perfectly pay for, but rely instead upon the simple principle of supply and demand.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling their Lordships' attention to the case of Hay-field School, in Derbyshire, which was not of itself important, but was only material, because it threw a light on the course which the Education Department were at present pursuing, and because it indicated the danger to which the Department was exposing itself. The case of Hayfield, which had been sent to him by the vicar of the parish, signed by some 50 or 60 of the inhabitants, was, he was sorry to say, the old and ordinary case of a small country parish of 2,800 inhabitants, which had been somewhat harshly and oppressively dealt with by the Department. There was a question as to the sufficiency of the school accommodation, the Inspector deciding that more was required, and the inhabitants proposed to make an addition by building an Infant School, attached to the National School; but in consequence of the owner of the proposed site being abroad, the conveyance could not be completed, and the Education Department took the opportunity of enforcing a school board on the parish, which, he thought, was very sharp practice. He dared say the Department had statutory powers to do that; but it was a practice
  1534
  which was likely to lead to ill effects. According to the proportion of school accommodation to the inhabitants, accommodation, was required in this parish for something under 500, and the National School and the Wesleyan School together had accommodation for 596; yet, in spite of that, the Education Department inisisted that a rate should be levied, and that additional school buildings should be raised. Of course, the inhabitants indignantly protested against the rate to be levied. These cases might seem a small matter, but were only large when often repeated, and they involved a large Constitutional question, as showing the spirit in which the Act was administered. It bore out what appeared to be the doctrine of the Education Department—that any contrivance or interpretation of the Act, however narrow and pedantic, and however harsh, was permissible, if the result would be to diminish the number of the Voluntary Schools and force the adoption of the School Boards. The leaning was always in that direction. He thought that was a very unfortunate tendency. He looked upon the Act of 1870, not as a thing that any of them liked in every respect, though they had all supported it. He himself had supported it; but it was a compromise between violently different opinions on the subject of education. He felt certain at the time that that compromise would not succeed, unless it was worked in the spirit in which it was originally introduced and recommended. This new spirit which was coming over the Education Department, this fanatical attachment to school boards; this contempt for the feelings of small parishes; this attempt to fasten school boards upon them—all these things discredited the Education Act. To his mind, the Education Department was being invaded by a policy of extremes; they were seized with a desire to push everything too far. On religious questions, voluntary schools were being squeezed out in order that school boards might be thrust in. They knew there had been constant pressure on the rates, resulting in great discontent at their continual increase, and that considerable invasion had had to be made on the rights of parents to secure education for their children; but if that was to be done without great discontent, it must be done with great

  1535
  judgment and moderation. Then there was the question of pressure upon the children, as to which his noble Friend who had spoken on the subject (Earl De La Warr) had shown the danger had greatly increased in recent years. No doubt, they could not get children to learn without exercising a certain amount of force, and a certain amount of risk must be run; but it was evident that the danger was increasing. It was not that children's brains had grown softer, or that the subjects taught were harder than they were; but it was a fact that very many more now suffered from over-pressure than formerly. In this matter, the same fanatical spirit, regardless of all moderation, had got hold of the educational machine. It was also seen in the system of payment by result. In the early days, he thought that that system was worked with moderation and care by the Department. Now, however, there was a general feeling that it was being worked too hard; while the spirit of the Inspectors and the Department was in favour of a too severe pressure. Unless great care and moderation was shown, it was to be feared that, in this respect, great injury would be done. There was another question which was more important still, and of which he thought the Education Department had not heard the end, and that was the question of expense. There, again, an utter want of moderation had been shown. The rates had been pushed up higher and higher, in order to build magnificent buildings, to pay gigantic salaries; and in order to introduce the teaching of subjects which were never dreamt of when the Act itself was before the House. One excuse after another was being made by those who had the control of education; but the rates were rising higher and higher; and this was the important thing he wanted the Government to consider—that discontent was also rising higher and higher. A very well-known Liberal Peer had assured a friend of his (the Marquess of Salisbury) in the Northern counties the other day that if a man wished to contest the county, if he would only throw away all political principles to the winds, and declare himself neither Whig nor Tory, but would simply declare himself utterly opposed to education, he would carry the seat for the county. He suspected that the noble Lord who said so
  1536
  was not very far out; and he feared that if the Education Department did not sufficiently reflect on the number of enemies with which their cause had to contend, as long as they acted with sagacity and moderation, and did not allow the fanatical and pedantic theories of some of their friends to press them too far, so long, he believed, little would be said, and they would be strong enough to maintain the compromise of 1870, and to push forward the great enterprise which that compromise contemplated. Their enemies were not dead. They were sleeping, and the sleep was being unfortunately disturbed. There was more discontent among the parents, the farmers, and employers of labour at the way in which children, were withdrawn from employment than formerly; there was also more and more discontent amongst the ratepayers, on account of the large sums extracted from them and expended by school boards; and also amongst the religious Bodies, who looked with more and more jealousy at the apparent object and desire of the Education Department to thrust religious education out of the schools; and parents were more and more resenting interference with their rights. If the education authorities allowed themselves to swim further with the current which now appeared to be carrying them away, he feared that the expenditure incurred at present would become much greater, and that a result would come about which both sides of the House would equally regret, which was that the present progress of the system of education, which, on the whole, worked well, would be seriously injured.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had asked the Education Department to think of the enemies with which it might have to contend. He could assure the noble Marquess that the Department did think of its possible enemies, among whom he feared, from the speech they had just heard, that the noble Marquess himself must be counted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): Certainly, the tone of the speech of the noble Marquess might make them think so. The noble

  1537
  Marquess had evolved almost every word of that speech out of the recesses of his own mind, a dangerous process, which might do with matters of opinion, but would not do with matters of fact. If he had studied the facts of the question, the acts of the Education Department, and the changes of the Codes, it would be impossible for him to have expressed some of the views he had stated. The line he had taken up was that the present authorities of the Department were a fanatical set of people, who were driving everything too hard in all directions in favour of board schools, against religious education, and in favour of ultra-education altogether. But whatever the merits or demerits of the Department might be, the truth was, that such had not been the course taken by the Department during the existence of the present Government, nor had it been the effect of the recent changes in the Code; and, therefore, these charges could not fairly be brought against it. The Codes, us recently revised, instead of pushing the system of results to excess and of increasing any tendency to over-pressure, had acted in a precisely opposite direction. Although the Department adhered to the principle of payment by results, which it believed to be necessary in order that the taxpayers of the country might get the worth of the enormous sums spent on education, it had in many respects mitigated the severity of the system. The noble Marquess talked about the perpetual increase of the rates; but that must have been evolved out of his own mind, for, as a matter of fact, the figures told a story precisely the reverse. The rates, instead of increasing, had been steadily decreasing.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In London?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was referring to the country generally. The payments of the ratepayers towards the expenses of school boards taken per child in average attendance amounted, in 1874, to £2 14 s 1d. while in 1882 it amounted to £1 17 s. 1d. Then, taking the cost of maintenance per child in average attendance, the proportion paid out of the rates in the year 1878 was over £1, and the annual grant was 15 s. 1d.; whereas in 1883 the amount paid out of the rates was 16 s. 1d.,
  1538
  and the annual grant had increased to 16 s. 7d.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That did not show what the ratepayers paid.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The figures showed how much was paid per child, and that had decreased; but the number of children had happily increased, of course. He also denied that the Department had insisted unduly upon the creation of school boards. In the particular case to which the noble Marquess had referred—that of Hayfield—it was not until a board school had been established that any controversy arose, and it was only then that the voluntary people began to think that they would rather have voluntary schools than pay an education rate. The people who were in favour of a voluntary school might, without difficulty, have established one before the introduction of a school board; but they did not do so. When once the board school had been set up it was not possible for the Education Department to interfere with the arrangement. To say that the Education Department was going out of its way to build board schools in order to supplant voluntary schools was not consistent with the facts of the case. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had asked him whether they would withdraw the grant in case of home lessons being required. They would not do so. There were no statutory hours of attendance; but a grant could not be earned without a minimum attendance, and that was all the Department had to do with the matter. Home lessons were, in very many cases, a useful part of school business, and half-an-hour would be about as much time as would be required for them. It would be, he believed, contrary to his duty to condemn home lessons as a rule; but there were children by whom, and there were homes, perhaps, consisting of single rooms, in which, it would be unreasonable to require that home lessons should be done. Every case must be treated by the Department upon its merits; and if it was found that there were school boards which were in that matter grossly unreasonable, or treated the children improperly in other respects, the Department had power to withdraw the grant. And now a word about the two speeches with which

  1539
  that conversation began. Those speeches formed a curious phenomenon in the educational controversy. He did not know whether there were two other gentlemen in the country who would agree in condemning, as he understood the noble Lords (Earl De La Warr and Lord Norton) to do, the whole educational system from top to bottom. He would not now make a speech about payment by results. He heard his noble Friend's speech, and he had heard it before. He made a speech then in reply, and he did not propose to make it over again, especially after what had fallen with much greater weight than he could pretend to from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). The higher subjects were taught only in a small minority of schools to a small minority of children; and that minority was not increasing, but diminishing very much. The question was, whether it was unwise of the ratepayers to furnish a minority of the children with something beyond the three R's, something which might enable them to pass on to those scholarships which his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) would like the riper children to obtain. But how were they to obtain them, if they were confined to the three R's? That was a part of the system, however, which ought not to be carried to excess. But the views of his noble Friend on the matter contrasted in the most curious way with the Scotch view. Scotch education was managed under a totally distinct Act, Code, and Department. It was as Scotch as if the Department had been moved out of the building at Whitehall. It was a remarkable feature of the Scotch system that Scotsmen would not tolerate their parish board schools being treated as mere primary schools. They were more than that. Scotsmen insisted, in regard to a great number of their board schools, that the higher subjects should be taught; and the result was that a large number of boys obtained an education at those schools which enabled them to pass on at once to the Universities. He (Lord Carlingford) did not ask English educationists to imitate this state of things, though it might be worthy of imitation; but that was the view of one of the best educated countries in the world. At the same time, it was impossible that they could give elementary school children the opportunity of getting
  1540
  a higher education, if higher subjects were to be absolutely excluded. And now a word as to over-pressure. With all the means of information at his disposal, he felt a strong temptation to treat it as a mere spectre; but he would not do so. He believed there was some small residue of fact in this huge spectre, growing up in the mist of opinion on the subject. The large majority of Inspectors reported against the existence of over-pressure; and here was what one of the most eminent of them (Mr. Oakley) said the other day, at a great educational gathering in Manchester—
  "He positively abhorred the notion of over-forcing and over-straining young children, and nothing of the kind would ever be required by the regulations of the Education Department, properly understood."
  He (Lord Carlingford) could trace the alarm on the subject to nothing else than the novelty of the regulations, which might have unduly frightened some teachers and managers with regard to the amount of grant they were likely to get. But the present Code was far less likely to lead to those bad results than the former ones. The rigidity of the Standards, instead of being increased, had been relaxed. The Report of the Education and Management of Schools Committee of the Leeds School Board, on the question of charges of over-strain or pressure in the public elementary schools in this town, stated that, after a most careful examination of 45 children, referred to in the Schedules, there did not appear to be a single instance of clear and undeniable injury to the "health or physical well-being" of children by schoolwork or attendance, during a period of five years. It was further observed by the Committee that the children instanced in the Returns were, to a large extent, cither infants, or in the very earliest Standards, and not more than 10 or 11 years of age. The Committee thought it should be borne in mind that the Government grant was paid for the dull and delicate children, withheld from examination, in exactly the same proportion as for the brightest; that the Standard grant was precisely the same for the lower as for the higher; so that there was not the slightest inducement to press children unduly forward: and that the grant was calculated on the average of children coming up to a minimum requirement in each Standard.

  1541
  As to payment on results, the Committee stated that the present system of individual examination of the children was the only guarantee of really effective instruction of the whole of the children, and of their yearly progress from Standard to Standard. Apart from such individual examination, the Committee said the children might be examined in classes. But what would be the result? The precocious might answer for the dull, and the children might remain in the same class for years without the least guarantee of progress. He would not detain their Lordships longer; but he must protest, on the part of the Education Department, and on the part of those who were interested in education in this country, against the extremely pessimist view taken by the two noble Lords who commenced the debate with regard to a system of education which, although much had yet to be done, they had considerable reason to be proud of.
  LORD COLCHESTERcalled attention to one remark of the noble Lord who had just spoken, that they were bound to look to bringing all the children into the schools. He could not suppose that the noble Lord meant to refer to the board schools alone; but the bringing of children into voluntary schools could not affect the increase of the education rate to which he referred. The allusion of the noble Lord to the Scotch system appeared to cast a censure on what was now being established by public or private agency throughout England — a system of schools of different grades, whore a clever boy might rise from one grade to another by scholarships, but which recognized the principle that an education intended to terminate very early should not be identical with the first years of a course intended to continue much longer.

NEWCASTLE CHAPTER BILL.—(No. 130.)
(The Lord Bishop of Durham.)
NEWCASTLE CHAPTER BILL.—(No. 130.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in the year 1878 an Act was passed for the creation of four new Bishoprics. Among the Sees affected by the provisions of that Act was the dio-
  1542
  cese of Durham. The counties of Durham and Northumberland contributed a far larger sum than was necessary to provide the minimum endowment for a new Bishopric, as specified in the Act, and the Bishopric of Newcastle was accordingly created. That step had been followed, it must be allowed, by the most beneficial results. The Act provided that such arrangements as were immediately necessary for the working of the diocese might be carried out by an Order in Council. In accordance with its provisions, the whole of his (the Bishop of Durham's) patronage in the diocese of Newcastle was, with his full consent, handed over to the new Bishop. It was necessary, however, to provide for other matters, in order that the ecclesiastical framework of the diocese might be completed, and the Bill now before their Lordships dealt with those matters. The Bill proposed to create a Dean and Chapter for the diocese of Newcastle, and, as connected therewith, to transfer a canonry of the cathedral church of Durham, which was attached to the Archdeaconry of Northumberland, to the new diocese. That formed the main part of the Bill, which was framed on the lines of the Truro Chapter Act. This remark applied to the first 10 clauses, on which, therefore, it was unnecessary to dwell. The 11th clause of the Bill would empower the executors of certain deceased persons who had promised donations to the Newcastle Bishopric Endowment to give effect to their known intentions. The 12th clause would re-transfer to the See of Newcastle certain patronage which had been transferred about a quarter of a century ago from the See of Durham to Sees that were at that time more slenderly endowed with patronage than they were now. It likewise dealt with other transferences of patronage which were advisable. The 13th clause would allow the Archdeacon of Northumberland, who was at present required by virtue of his Archdeaconry to reside within the diocese of Newcastle, and by virtue of his Canonry to reside in the diocese of Durham, to retain his residence and stall in Durham, until, by the voluntary acceptance of some preferment in the diocese of Newcastle, he transferred himself thither. He would, in conclusion, move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Bishop of Durham).
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that he was one who had felt it to be his duty to consent to the retransference of patronage proposed by the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.