Lords Sitting of 29 July 1890

ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 219.)
Committed for Thursday next.
LONDON STREETS (REMOVAL OF GATES) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 233): To be considered on Friday next.
CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 152.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., with an Amendment: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c. BILL.—(No. 167.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments: The Report thereof received: and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 234.)
PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 172.)
Reported from the Standing Committee for General Bills, with Amendments: The Report thereof received; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 235.)
SHREWSBURY AND HOLYHEAD ROAD (ANGLESEA AND CARNARVON, BILL.—(No. 210.)
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL.—(No. 155.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I have an Amendment in Clause 1. My noble Friend opposite, who takes an interest in this question, was anxious that deaf mutes should have at least eight years of compulsory education. In Committee that proposal was considered, on the footing that they should stay where they were being educated until they were16 years of age. By the Bill they are made children up to the age of 16, but the compulsory attendance was only up to 14. In order to ensure that there shall, if possible, be the eight years' compulsory education, I propose, and my noble Friend assents, to leave out in line 7 the words "except in the case of a deaf child under seven years of age."
  EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly regret to find that in the Standing Committee the general sense of the Committee was against the proposal which I made. The proposal was in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners; but as that was the case I regretfully acquiesced that the course of education should take eight years. The Committee recommended that the age should be 16, and I myself think that best. I accept the proposal which the noble Viscount has made.
  Amendment moved, in line 7, to leave out the words "except in the case of a deaf child under seven years of age"
  Agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have given notice of an Amendment for the purpose of being able to make some remarks upon this clause of the Bill. It is the clause which provides that the County Councils are to pay half the expense which has been incurred under this Bill.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Half of the net expense.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Exactly so. The question how to provide for the expense incurred under this Bill seems, I fully admit, to be one of some difficulty. At first it certainly occurred to me that a better arrangement would have been that any relief to be given to particular School Authorities should be in the form of a contribution from the whole Union; but I quite saw, when I endeavoured to frame such an Amendment, that there are great difficulties in making such a provision, because the School Authorities are of two kinds under this Bill: there is the School Authority represented by the School Board, and there is the School Authority which is represented by the Attendance Committee appointed by the Board of Guardians. Of course, if you provide that a Union rate should be levied, then it must be levied by the Board of Guardians, and that would place them in some sort over the School Board. I do not quite see, I freely admit, how to frame such an Amendment. It is quite possible an Amendment of that kind might be framed, but I have not that minute acquaintance with such matters which would justify me in making such a proposal. To give the reason why I think on consideration it would be better that this clause should be struck out, my objection is a general one. I do not like the idea of making the County Councils mere conduit pipes for making payments to other bodies. A County Council is a body which ought to exercise an intelligent control over all matters where money is to be paid out of the County Rate; and, as I understand this Bill, all the County Council would have to do would be simply to supply so much money towards the expenses of these various School Authorities; it would have really no voice in the matter, except possibly to say that a particular expense would be a reasonable one. My own impression is that the proper course would be that each School Authority should provide for its own deaf-mutes and blind. If there are any deaf-mutes and blind children in a district, why should not that district provide for them in the same way as it provides for the ordinary unafflicted children who have to be provided for in the district? In large parishes, I do not think there
  1156
  would be any real objection. The only difficulty which I see is in the cases which I fully admit may exist where there are very small parishes, having to provide for such children. But I do not suppose the number of deaf-mutes and blind children would be considerable in any one of those parishes, and therefore I do not see that the burden would be very serious. What I contend is that if it is necessary there should be an additional grant made towards those particular parishes or School Boards, for the purpose of enabling these particular children to be educated. It would be far more reasonable that that should be a grant made by the Education Department than by the County Council. This is a. matter of education. This Bill provides that the blind and deaf-mutes should be educated. Their education will necessarily, I apprehend, cost more than the education of ordinary children. If that is so, as it is a matter of national importance that these children should be educated, if any additional expense is incurred thereby, I do not see why there should not be a special grant made in that way, and I do not see why it would not be possible then to leave the various parishes to make their own arrangements. It would be entirely a matter of contribution towards the maintenance of larger establishments. Of course, I need hardly say that I do not intend to press the matter to a Division. My object is to draw attention generally to the nature of the clause, and specially to say what I think will be found to be the case, that there will probably be very considerable objections put forward throughout the country to making this provision by way of a rate to be paid by the County Council. I am not inclined to push the objection which I am going to mention very far, but the noble Viscount knows as well as I do what jealousy is felt in regard to the application of money derived from the rates for voluntary schools. Of course, these giants from the rates will be, in reality, applied for the maintenance of these poor children. But, as I have said, I am not inclined to press the objection on that ground very strongly; still, as it is an objection which obtains very strongly throughout the country I cannot help feeling that there will on that account be a great deal of opposition to this Bill,

  1157
  which everyone must, I think, desire to see passed.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I am very much indebted to the noble Earl and to the Committee for the way in which they have received the Bill and discussed it. I quite admit there are great difficulties in dealing with this question in England which would not exist in Scotland, because there they have schools where one system could be adopted throughout. Then with regard to the expense, I called the noble Earl Lord Kimberley's attention to the fact that it is the net expense that has to be dealt with, because under this Bill it will be observed that nothing is laid down as to the amount which the State will give for the purpose of this education, and, therefore, whatever it is the net expense will be whatever has to be provided beyond that. It may be according to the grant which will be given through the Education Department that the necessity for any large expenditure may be obviated. But I thought that was entirely a question for the other House, and, therefore, I have only put in that there should be that power through the Education Department to make a Parliamentary grant for this purpose. Then with regard to the Voluntary School question I think the noble Earl will see there is not much risk on that head in this case. For the blind and the deaf-mutes the amount of expense will be different. The expense of educating the blind will be much less than that of educating deaf-mutes, because, with the exception of the necessary embossed books and means of that kind for teaching them there is nothing very exceptional in their case as regards expenditure. It is nothing like so great in regard to the numbers of taachers required, and so on, as in the case of the deaf-mutes. I believe the noble Earl opposite, who has acquainted himself so thoroughly with the subject, knows how few deaf-mutes can be taught by a single person. But with the blind that is different. Perhaps I may be permitted to say for a moment that there is a good deal of misconception entertained as to the duties of the Department with which I am connected. People write as if its duties were not merely to see to elementary education, but to continue the manual and technical instruction up to the age of 21. That, of course, is quite
  1158
  beyond the purview of the Department over which I have the honour to preside, at all events at present. That duty may be cast upon it hereafter, but at present it is not. Therefore, this Bill is confined to what I may call the "child age." It is only that with which we have to deal. In these cases the question of rates I quite admit is very important. I may recall the fact that I showed the noble Earl opposite and others a card which I had received, giving particulars of one case where a marriage between deaf-mutes produced five deaf-mute children, all practically falling upon the rates, that is to say, looking to charity in order to get their education. The Guardians in all cases have to find whatever money is found, except where the parents are in good circumstances and can contribute towards the cost; and I find the amount is as much as £18 per head. So that in that case of five children in one family there is a sum of £90 to be found for that purpose by one small parish which might not, in fact, be able to raise much more than that sum even if it had a 2d. rate. My idea was, as far as possible, to spread the burden of these children as has been done in other cases—diseased, sick, and others—so that they might be provided for in degree. Formerly, as your Lordships know, everything was charged upon each parish in London, but now all such charges are thrown on the Common Fund. And so with regard to the County Councils; the County Councils have at present, by the 24th section of the Local Government Act, to provide, in a great many instances, money very much in the same way as this. This, of course, will be a much smaller sum, one which will not press very heavily upon the Councils, or, indeed, upon the Unions. But there is one fact which the noble Earl has omitted to mention. In the case of a School Attendance Committee, the power belongs, of course, to the Guardians; but there may be a very large part of the Union under the School Boards, and there may be only a small part without the School Boards, and having Voluntary Schools. Therefore, the area would be a very limited one, as it is under the School Attendance Committee. That part which is outside the School Boards' districts forms an important part, because there the School Attendance Committee would, of course have no power

  1159
  of interference with the School Boards. Well, that being so, the noble Earl will see how very difficult it is to lay down any rule as to fixing the charge upon the Guardians. The subject has been most carefully considered. The Local Government Board was so extremely hostile to putting it upon the Guardians, and they made so many real bonâ fide objections upon the subject, that we thought that was the best way—though I do not myself think it a very good way—that was open to us to keep the expense within bounds. Those who have to provide for these children will have such help from the State as the House of Commons think fit to grant; and, in addition to that, the local bodies will contribute. I am much obliged to the noble Earl for letting me send down the Bill in that shape to the House of Commons, where it is much more fitting to be discussed than here. I do not think there is anything more that I need add with regard to this clause.
  Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday next.

  SETTLED LAND BILL.—(No. 185.)
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to order.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is one Amendment which I have to move. It is really to carry out what the House decided. The Amendment was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, in line 15, with regard to the restoration and re-building of the mansion house. The word "re-building" does not appear in the Bill as printed, and "restoration" does. I move, therefore, to leave out the word "restoration" and to insert "re-building."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FLASHING SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether Admiral Colomb has accepted the offer of £2,000, which my noble Friend who represents the Admiralty stated was to be made to him in a letter which was to be sent to him?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: In answer to my noble Friend's question, I can only say that there has been a quite unavoidable delay in sending the letter I mentioned to Admiral Colomb. That letter has now gone to him, and until we receive his reply I am unable to give the noble Lord the answer he desires.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.—(No. 231.)
  REMOVAL TERMS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 200.)'
  Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.