Lords Sitting of 7 March 1890

LICENSING ACT, 1872, AMENDMENT BILL.
A Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1872, as to granting licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors at railway stations —Was presented by the Earl Beauchamp; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No. 35.)

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee, considered (according to order).
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I beg leave to move the adoption of this Report. The only point of importance in it, as far as I know, is the recommendation of the Committee that an allowance of £1,500 per annum should be awarded to Mr. Disraeli, as a pension in consideration of his services. I should mention that although Mr. Disraeli has had only 15 years' service in this House, his aggregate period of employment in the public service has extended over no less a period than 48 years.
Report agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Earl of Kimberley to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, for the Consideration of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I beg to move for the Returns of which I have given notice. I want to say one word as to the reason why those Returns should be presented to your Lordships. At this moment everybody knows there is a great cry for free education, whatever that may mean, and what has been done in Scotland has been quoted as an authority or as a precedent for imitation in England. What the Scotch Act does is out of the Treasury Funds to free parents in Scotland of every class from paying anything for the education of their children in State-aided schools. Anything that the Treasury may pay for is supposed to be free, and even those who recognise the Treasury as merely
234
collective taxes, call that free education, which is paid for out of the Treasury, so as to free parents who use the school from paying anything more than all taxpayers pay in common. These Returns will show, in the first place, the primary provision made by the Scotch Act to free from fees is wholly inadequate. The Act appropriates, in the first instance, the balance of the Probate Duties after two prior charges for the purpose. It turns out that the sum required last year was £240,000, and that those prior charges amounted to £280,000. So that, as regards this primary provision for free education in Scotland, the real amount of it was a minus quantity of £40,000 in the year. But the provision has been made from Excise licences; so that the main support of free education in Scotland is from consumption of whisky. The harder they drink the more available the provision for free education.
"Nune est bibendum, nune pede libero Docenda tellus."
But, even with Excise Duties, the provision must fall short of its intention to free from all payment fees. The Return will, I believe, show that two-thirds of the schools are relieved from the payment of fees only in respect of infants; that some are relieved from fees up to the Third Standard; that some schools are relieved from fees up to the Fifth Standard, and only a few of them from all fees. There is another point to which I should draw attention. These Returns will show that it is far easier to make a distribution of public money among the almost universal Board schools of Scotland than it could possibly be among the schools of England, one half of which are voluntary. It is clear from that one distinction there can be no inference whatever made from the Scotch Act to what would suit England. The Returns will also show that some Boards are to be allowed under the seventh paragraph of the Education Minute to receive this relief while still maintaining some schools charging fees. Your Lordships ought also to be in possession of information as to the regulation which has been made by the Education Department in Scotland for those schools which, under the Endowments Act of 1882, already had funds for the payment of fees. The Return

235
will show that in Edinbugh and Glasgow, and in how many other towns, there have been public meetings held to protest against this distribution of public money in payment of fees. They call it a class-distribution and find fault with it as not having taken a fair average of fees throughout the Kingdom, and still allowing some fees to be paid, which, they say, is contrary to the principle of perfect equality in the parochial schools of Scotland. I hope, my Lords, that if these Returns are at all what I expect they must be, we shall have an end of the quotation of the Scotch Act as a precedent which it is desirable should be followed in England.
Moved—
"That there he laid before this' House Returns showing—
How much relief from fees has been given to parents sending children to State-aided Schools in Scotland from the balance of Probate Duty so appropriated by the Act of last Session;
How ranch from other taxes, and what taxes;
In how many schools such relief has been accepted

i. For infants only;

ii. For scholars up to Third, Standard;

iii. Up to Fifth Standard;

iv. For all;

How many voluntary schools have accepted such relief, and what proportion of the 3,120 schools are voluntary;
How many boards have been allowed under paragraph 7 of the Minute of 26th August, 1889, to maintain some schools charging fees;
What is the regulation made for schools which by schemes under the Endowment Act, 1882, have funds for payment of fees, and the number of such schools;
In what places dissatisfaction has been expressed at the grants not covering all fees up to the highest."—(The Lord Norton.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN): My Lords, I wish very much for my own sake, and for the sake of your Lordships also, that I had been able at once to assent to the Motion of the noble Lord who has asked for the Returns of which he has given notice; but I am bound to say that the ideas with regard to the Returns which have been asked for by the noble Lord are based partly upon ignorance of the state of matters as they now are, and partly upon a misapprehension of the state of matters which has been brought about by the Local Government Act of last year. The noble Lord has
236
asked for these Returns apparently upon the ground that they will convey information to your Lordships which you are not already in possession of. With the exception, perhaps, of the very last paragraph of the noble Lord's Motion for Returns your Lordships are already in possession of all the facts, so far as it is possible for those who are not within the Department to be acquainted with them One passage in the noble Lord's speech filled me with astonishment. He began by saying that he moved for these Returns in order to show that the working and results of the Scotch Act would not give ground for the adoption of the system in England; and then he proceeded to say in the very next sentence that the circumstances were in England so absolutely different from those in Scotland that the working of the Scotch Act could afford no guide whatever as to whether the same course should be followed in England or not. That is all I have to say with regard to the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord; but I should like to refer somewhat in detail, if your Lordships will allow me, to the Motion for Returns which has been made. The first Return asked for is as to how much relief from fees has been given to parents sending children to State-aided schools in Scotland from the balance of the Probate Duty so appropriated by the Act. That means to say that in giving relief from, the payment of fees some sort of donation has been made to parents. But that is a total misapprehension of the matter. There is no payment in regard to parents whatever under the Minute of the Privy Council dated the 26th August; the payments for fees have been made to the managers of State-aided schools, the entire number of schools being 3,126. That payment is directed not to the relief of the parents directly, but in order to enable the managers of the State-aided schools to relieve them from dependence upon the payment of fees as far as they could under the Minute of the 26th August. That is the object of it. There is no direct relief to parents; I acknowledge, of course, that there is relief; but from the notice for the Return which the noble Lord asks for, he appears to think that direct aid is given to the parents. Then, with regard to the second Return, the noble Lord, after

237
speaking of the balance of Probate Duty appropriated by the Act of last Session, asks how much relief has been given from other, and what, taxes. It is simply impossible for me to say from what special taxes this relief is given. Under the Local Government Act of last Session —I think it is Section 19—the Probate Duty as far as it went, the Excise Duty, and the Licensing Duty, which the noble Lord objects to so much, were taken together; but upon those duties there were first charges, not two, as he suggested, but a, great many more. There were charges for pauper lunatics, police, roads, for medical relief, and a small charge in respect of the Highlands and Islands, amounting altogether to £330,500. The total amount for the half-year from those two sources which are available for relief from the payment of fees for education from the 31st October to the 31st March now approaching was £499,800. Deducting the £330,500 from that sum you have for the relief of education fees for the six months ending 31st March £169,300, not £240,000 as I understood the noble Lord to say.
LORD NORTON: I beg pardon; I only said there was a sum of £240,000 required for freeing from fees and from the Probate Duty, after, from charges only, a negative £40,000 available.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The Probate Duty came to £234,300: the noble Lord is practically right so far. But that does not cover the whole amount necessary to be provided for freeing education, and, therefore, it has to be supplemented by the Licensing Duties. But it is all settled by the Local Government Act, and all the noble Lord has to do, if ho disapproves of the system, is to ask for the repeal of the Act, which, can only be done, of course, by Parliament. Then that sum, which is not £240,000, as I thought the noble Lord stated, but £169,000, has enabled relief to be given to the amount of 6s. 6d. for every child where the payments have been made. Of that sum, 2s. 6d. was paid in October, another 2s. 6d. in January, and there remains 1s. 6d. still to be paid. But in saying that, I must state that that is a matter of estimate only, because, until the Probate and Excise Duties are sent into the Treasury, it is impossible to say exactly what the amount will be;
238
but still I think the amount I have mentioned—6s.6d.—will be available as an average for every child in Scotland. I think that, in asking for the Returns, the noble Lord also has in his mind that this is a fixed amount; but the amount is by no means fixed. It is subject to two variations; in the first place, if the number of children is very largely increased, as, of course it may be, in any sum that has to be divided among them, though the aggregate remains the same, the special allowance for each individual child will be less; and, on the other hand, if the amount should prove to be greater, the sum available for distribution would be larger. Again, there may be a variation in the Probate and Excise Duties—they are no doubt subject to variation. I mention that to show that it is absolutely impossible to say what the amount for each child will be in the future. On these grounds, my Lords, again I need hardly say that it is absolutely impossible for me to state what the effect of the Returns asked for under the first two heads would be, and I do not think it would be of any benefit to give them. As I have said before, the noble Lord seems to me to put his question under a misconception. With regard to the third question as to the number of schools in which the relief has been accepted, I think if the noble Lord refers to the Minute, he will see that it is impossible under the terms of the Minute already referred to to give a Return in that form. It would be quite contrary to the terms of the Minute, because there is no distinction made in it between infants and scholars up to the Third Standard; and not only that, but with regard to the form of the Return asked for up to the Fifth Standard, under the terms of that Minute, a certain amount of free education must have been continued up to the Fifth Standard, but beyond that the Minute does not touch upon the point. I have already placed in the hands of the noble Lord a Minute which, I think, will give him all the information he requires, and I shall be quite ready to place that upon the Table of the House. With regard to the next question, how many voluntary schools have accepted such relief and what proportion of the 3,120 schools are voluntary, I am able to inform the noble Lord that out of the 3,126

239
schools I have mentioned, 488 are voluntary, but those which have accepted payments in relief of fees upon the conditions of the Minute of August 26th, 1889, are 472 in number; there are only 16 remaining, and those schools do not ask for the grant at all. With regard to the next question, how many Boards have been allowed Under the Minute of August 26th to maintain schools charging fees, I have to say that the number of schools charging fees are 44 under the management of 26 Boards. Then, with regard to the next question as to the regulations for schools, which, by schemes under the Endowment Act, 1882, have funds for the payment of fees and the number of such schools, I think your Lordships will see that it is simply impossible for me to give the Return desired by the noble Lord. In the first place, if lie will refer to the 85th section of the Local Government Act he will find the terms upon which the regulations are made. Every single case has to be considered upon its own merits. Some of these endowments have alternative schemes for the use of money which has been dedicated to free education; but, as a general rule, where there is no regulation under the Endowment Schemes, and where it has been necessary to consider what was to be done with the money, they have used it for the remission of fees in classes above the Fifth Standard. But there has been no general regulation made in that respect, and, therefore, it is impossible for me to give particulars of a regulation which does not exist. Then the last question is: in what places dissatisfaction has been expressed at the grants not covering all fees up to the highest; and I confess myself astonished that the noble Lord should have put that question on the Paper. Before he requests a Return of that kind, I would ask him to define what he means by "dissatisfaction"? Does the noble Lord mean dissatisfaction expressed by outside individuals or by School Boards, by outside Bodies, or by whom? There are many points which have been raised; some persons have been dissatisfied because absolutely free education has not been given; and some persons have expressed a wish that Government should give further grants in order to enable them to give free education throughout
240
their schools up to Standard V. All sorts of points might be raised by giving the Returns asked for by my noble Friend, even if it were possible to do so. Even if it were possible I should say that it would be most unwise to give such a Return; and as it is neither possible not, as I consider, desirable, I am afraid I cannot give the Return asked for. I think I see in the last paragraph an attempt to found a reason for a letter which appeared some time ago in the Times. I am not quite sure what the noble Earl's words were; but, at any rate, ho expressed an opinion that the new scheme of free education in Scotland was altogether impracticable and invidious. I can only say I read that letter to the Times with very great regret. When the noble Karl wrote it, I can only say that it was under a total misapprehension of the subject, and I think he should not have attempted to throw discredit on the system at starting. In every state-aided school in Scotland it has been adopted and carried out with exceedingly little friction. If the noble Lord expects that every Act of Parliament is going to bear upon every individual who comes under its operation exactly in the same way, of course he may have that opinion: but so far as the working of the Act is concerned, and the Minute of the Education Department under the Act, it has been carried out with absolute fairness and equality in every part of Scotland and in every school which has come under the control of the Department. I think I have answered most of the points raised by the noble Lord. I hope he may be satisfied with the statement I have made. All I can do, I think, is to make a Parliamentary Paper of the information I am able to give.
LORD NORTON: I trust your Lordships will allow me to say one word. I shall be much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving what Returns he can; but lie must allow me to say that his objections to some parts of my Motion seem to me rather inadequate. He said he could not state what the result of the Act would be for every year. Of course not. The Return I ask for is to show its effect in the past year. I do not ask for Returns to cover every year. Then he says that if I object to the Act, my proper course is I to seek to repeal the Act; but that is

241
not what I desire. All 1 ask is that the Act shall not be extended to England. I do not care what the Scotch people may like to adopt in their own country. Then, with regard to the dissatisfaction which has been expressed at large public meetings. I have in my hands a report of the protests made in Glasgow, and I believe there have been protests at public meetings in other towns also. When the noble Marquess says the relief from fees is made to managers of schools and not to the parents, I fail to see the distinction; if it is given to managers in relief of fees which the parents would have to pay, it is a grant surely in relief to the parents. I hope the noble Marquess will give all that can be given in the way of information. For the particulars he has given me in manuscript I am exceedingly obliged to him, and if he will have them printed for the information of the House I shall be glad.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I have only a few words to say with regard to one point which my noble Friend has made. How can the Education Department give Returns of the meetings which have expressed dissatisfaction with the Act? If such meetings take place they may petition this House, and that is a more convenient course than asking for Returns in this House from a Department which has no means of obtaining them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press his Motion?
LORD NORTON: I do not think I can press it further at present.
On Question, resolved in the negative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): There is a Motion which, stands in my name for a change in your Lordships' arrangements. It is, I think, duo to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell), and it has, I believe, received the assent of those who have had the working of Committees last year. A very considerable difficulty was found in consequence of noble Lords who had to attend on the Committees not being present in the House when their presence was required.
242
That, I think, was even more the case with my noble and learned Friend in reference to Bills which required his attention than with any other Member of the House. I beg to move—
"That the evening sitting of the House en Tuesday next and on all subsequent Tuesdays during the present Session do commence at half-past five o'clock unless the House shall otherwise order."'
On Question, agreed to.

CHRISTIAN MISSIONS IN SYRIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, although the subject which I am about to bring before you is not on the Orders of the Day, I trust I may be allowed to congratulate the noble Marquess on the admirable appointment he has made to the post of Consul General at Beyrout, to the delight, T should imagine, of everyone who is interested in Syria, a country which is increasing annually in prosperity, and daily in interest. With, regard to the Christian Missions there and the long-pending appointment to the post of Consul General at Beyrout, I should be deceiving the noble Marquess if I were not to confess that very considerable misgivings and anxiety—
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I rise to order. I wish to submit to your Lordships whether the noble Lord is in order in bringing forward a subject of which no notice has been given? It is contrary, I believe, to the general custom of this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was before I was in the House, but I think there was a Report made by a Committee of which, I believe. Lord Stanhope was Chairman a Report in which the House coincided that matters of importance should not be brought forward without duo notice. As that is the case the noble Lord is out of order. If he will kindly put his Motion on the Paper we shall be in a better position to discuss it than we possibly can be now.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am sorry the noble Lord has thought it right to interrupt me. I am quite certain that what I was going to say would not have been unwelcome to your Lordships. I do not think it would have been objected to. I had a particular reason for making

  243
  these remarks, and that is, that I have received a communication this afternoon from the British Syrian Mission, an Institution which under the patronage of Bishop Perry takes in Syria very much the position which the Church Missionary Society takes in Palestine. I hope I shall not be interrupted. I was about to say that I have received a communication which I intended to press orally upon the noble Marquess in this House in order to spare him, in order to spare the Foreign Office, and, if I may be permitted to say so, in order to spare myself the correspondence which will otherwise be entailed, as I assure your Lordships will be the case, correspondence which I assure my noble Friend who interrupted me, as I venture to think without sufficient cause, will ensue if I am not permitted to bring this matter forward now. Of course, I am in your Lordships' hands; but even during the short time I have sat in this House, in the present Session, noble Lords have been permitted to mention matters which were not down on the agenda. It remains with the noble Marquess, and I ask him to say whether I shall not be permitted to spare himself, the Foreign Office, and myself the correspondence which must otherwise ensue?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Foreign Office is very much accustomed to correspondence, and I do not know whether they will shrink from the ordeal with which the noble Lord threatens them. As far as I am concerned, I shall be very pleased to listen to anything the noble Lord has to say; the only thing I cannot promise is to give him an answer.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am sure what I desire to say will not be unwelcome.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very glad to hear what the noble Peer has to say, and if noble Lords do not object I shall hear what he wishes to state, but I cannot promise him an answer without notice.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I should not presume to expect an answer from the noble Marquess now; but I have a communication from the Syrian Mission. I had the honour of bringing another question not very dissimilar to this before the noble Earl in 1885. That matter was settled, and I have no doubt it was settled the more easily because the schools relative
  244
  to which the dispute between the English and Turkish Governments then arose—
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to order. I will merely state that I rise as an individual Peer, and that I have the right to call the attention of the House to a question of order, whether I am appealed to directly by the noble Peer or whether he is appealing to anyone else. It appears to me that what the noble Marquess has said is perfectly correct, and that it is out of order for a noble Lord to bring on a matter of which he has not given notice. The noble Lord will put himself in order by placing notice on the Paper for a day when he can bring before the House any arguments he has in favour of his notice.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am sorry noble Lords will not let me finish what I commenced. I can only appeal again to your Lordships—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to order. The noble Lord has been called to order three or four times, and I beg to move that he be not now heard.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock