Lords Sitting of 13 March 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SAINT MARGARET'S, LEICESTER, SELECT VESTRY BILL. [H.L.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which is promoted by the Select Vestry of St. Margaret's, Leicester, with the view of obtaining the sanction of Parliament to the sale of certain laud which is vested in them, and of providing for the application of the proceeds of sale for the benefit of the inhabitants, the parishioners of the Parish of St. Margaret's. The land in question was in the year 1764, or about that date, awarded to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of St. Margaret's, and it consists of about 17½ acres. It has been for many years known as the "Parish Piece," and is held by the Churchwardens and Overseers for the time being for the sole use, benefit, and advantage of themselves and the rest of the inhabitants of the parish, for the time being, who pay rates and taxes to the said parish." These 17½ acres which are thus held by the Churchwardens and Overseers for the benefit of the parishioners are situated in the Parish of St. Margaret's, and in the midst of what is now a portion of the town, containing a very large number of inhabitants. At the present time this piece of land is let to certain individuals at a rental of £130 a year, and they again let it out in allotments. The sum of £130 a year is certainly a very inadequate receipt from this valuable property, as your Lordships will understand when I tell you that it has been valued at a sum considerably exceeding £30,000. All that is received from it at present for the benefit of the inhabitants is the £130 a year which I have mentioned. That income has been divided between certain schools in the parish, but it has been found by the inhabitants of the parish, as well as the Churchwardens and Overseers, that it
    862
    might now with, advantage be sold, and applied to other purposes than, those to, which it is at present applied, and that the very considerable sum of money which would be received for it might be more advantageously used for the benefit of the parish than if the land were left in its present position—the parish being only in receipt from it of the income I have mentioned. Of one thing, my Lords, there can be no doubt, that this piece of land cannot be dealt with more advantageously to the parish by way of sale without the authority of Parliament. The matter was considered by the Charity Commissioners, and they came to the conclusion that it was not a case in which they would be enabled, under their general powers, to make a scheme which might be approved, involving the sale of this piece of land, without the authority of Parliament. The matter has been before the Attorney General, and he has come to the same conclusion, namely, that Parliamentary sanction would be necessary for the sale of the land. Therefore, so far there can be no dispute about that very important point. The Charity Commissioners have suggested that power should simply be given to sell the land by the Act which is being applied for; and that then it should be left to them to settle a scheme uncontrolled by Parliament in the way in which they can settle schemes in cases which come within their powers. On the other hand, the Attorney General has suggested that the better course would be to enable the Court of Chancery to frame a scheme in the way in which, in certain cases, schemes are framed by the Court now. The inhabitants of the parish, on the other hand, would prefer the destination of the proceeds of sale to be determined by Parliament; and they have proposed a scheme which is embodied in this Bill. Of course they are quite conscious that that scheme may be open to objections, and they do not desire to put forward in any way the scheme as one to be absolutely accepted as a necessary condition of the passing of the Bill. They wish, at all events, that there should be power given them to sell this piece of land, and to apply the proceeds advantageously for the benefit of the parishioners. Now, my Lords, the purposes to which the parish have proposed to apply

    863
    the proceeds of the land I may describe shortly as a scheme for almshouses and out-pensions. The Charity Commissioners, on the other hand, have suggested a scheme which provides for a very considerable variety of objects. They have suggested that it should be applied in part for purposes of education; in part for purposes of a dispensary or infirmary; in part for a provident club; in part for a reading-room, library, and working men's club; and in part to providing allotments under the Allotments Extension Act; and they object to the scheme of the Vestry because, in their view, the establishing of almshouses on so large a scale as proposed is open to question. It does not strike me that the scale proposed is really very extensive; but I cannot help thinking that in matters which are properly within the rights of the Charity Commissioners, no doubt they would carry their views into effect in the framing of a scheme. But I do think there is a danger of too cast iron and rigid a system being imposed on different parts of the country according to the views of the Charity Commissioners. They object to almshouses; but some people may think, as the parishioners here do, that almshouses are a useful form of charity, that they serve important and valuable purposes, and that they would do so in this particular instance. I think that is at all events a matter which is well open to consideration, and which ought not to be subject to the absolute control and determination of the Charity Commissioners. But, of course, I quite admit that the view of the Charity Commissioners is a matter that ought to be taken into the most serious and careful consideration; and those who promote this Bill would certainly be very far from wishing that the Charity Commissioners should not put forward for consideration a scheme for the application of the money to be derived from the sale of this piece of land, or that that scheme, subject to their objections being also heard and considered, should not form a substantial basis for legislation in this matter. Of course that might be carried out by a scheme being prepared by the Charity Commissioners, and any objections of the parish to it being heard, and then, ultimately, the scheme determined upon being inserted in a
    864
    Schedule to the Bill; so that before the Bill passes your Lordships' House, or Parliament, there should appear upon the face of it the manner in which the money is to be expended, and that the scheme should have Parliamentary sanction. It seems to me that would be obviously a full, acceptable, and satisfactory settlement of the matter. So far I have dealt with the suggested different schemes, and how those schemes are to be carried out; but I understand that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Hobhouse) opposes the Second Reading of this Bill altogether, at the instance of those who take the view that open spaces such as this should be kept as open spaces for the purpose of public recreation. Certainly I should be the last to deprecate in the slightest degree the importance of having sufficient places of recreation for the benefit of the inhabitants of populous towns; but in the present case the view taken by those who promote the Bill is this: that it is not really required; that is to say that within a few minutes' walk of this particular space there exists an excellent recreation ground which is open to the inhabitants of the parish, and which has been laid out for the very purpose. It is within this parish, and, as I have said, is within a few minutes of this very spot. Of course this is a consideration which must be borne in mind, that if you take a valuable piece of ground of this sort and devote it to purposes of recreation, the persons who more immediately benefit by it are those in the immediate neighbourhood, and it ceases to be as it was intended to be, a piece of land used for the benefit of the inhabitants at large; the more especially as here there exists a much better recreation ground than this would be within this very parish, and you would be taking from the parishioners at large that which belongs to them, and applying it for the benefit of a portion only of the people in that parish. That would be the effect of it, and therefore, it seems to me, there is a good deal to be said against the view that on such a ground as that the Bill should be thrown out on Second Reading. I think such a course as I suggest would prevent injustice being done to anybody; the views of all those who are interested would be reasonably and fairly considered,

    865
    and those views which should be considered most desirable would be carried out. I cannot help thinking that the result would be to append to this Bill a scheme which would give general satisfaction and be greatly for the benefit of the parishioners of St. Margaret's. On those grounds I move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
    *LORD HOBHOUSE: I am very sorry to oppose my noble and learned Friend, and very sorry to take up your Lordship's time, but it is my duty to oppose the Second Beading of this Bill. Before I address myself to the subject, I will hand in a Petition signed by 1,200 of the inhabitants, ratepayers of the parish, who are also 1,200 members of the governing body of this endowment. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading the Petition, but I will simply state that the upshot of it, as I gather from a copy which has been given to me, is this: that the petitioners desire that there should be no scheme at all made at the present moment, and that when a scheme is made it should not involve the sale of the land, but that the land should be kept as open land, and used as a recreation ground for the people of Leicester; and they deprecate the Legislature doing anything in the matter until there has been an ample local inquiry made by competent officials. I think when I have stated the case, your Lordships will see that that is a very reasonable Petition. I have said that I am sorry to take up time, but I think that at the present day it is hardly necessary to apologise for asking the Houses of Parliament to hesitate long before they give aid to proposals for the sale (for building purposes) of open land which is situate in the midst of a crowded population in a populous, growing town. I say in the midst, although this land is now nearly at one end of the town. It has, as I read in the Bill, itself been surrounded by buildings on all sides excepting a road frontage. Some 20 or 30 years ago the policy which is embodied in this Bill was considered to be the wisest policy, and it was common then to sell open lands in order to get more money for the purposes of the endowment. Your Lordships will bear in mind
    866
    that this is a charitable endowment. But a remarkable change has come over the convictions and feelings of people in that matter. People have found that money may be purchased too dearly, that it may be purchased indeed at the expense of health and enjoyment; that health and enjoyment are better things; and that when you have got the money, even if it is wisely administered, which is not always the case, the enjoyment of it is confined to comparatively a few, while the health and the recreation are spread over the whole community. And so it has come about—at least I can speak for London—that this desire to keep open spaces, the love of fresh air, of the clear sky, of something to look over, of something to look at which is not bricks and mortar, has come to be a feeling spreading wide and deep among the poorer classes of the community. Now I am not one of those, although I appear at the wish of a Commons' Preservation Society, who oppose at all times and in all places the enclosure of open lands. I think that every case must rest upon its own circumstances. There may be, possibly, a case for doing what is proposed in this town of Leicester; but this I do say, with the anticipation that I shall meet with general assent, that those who come forward with such a proposal applied to lands in the middle of a populous town, ought to show strong and sufficient reasons for it, and that the mere money gain is not a strong and sufficient reason. You may read this Bill from beginning to end and you will find that no reason for this movement is alleged except that of money gain; and I propose to examine the Bill to show that the persons who promote it (who are the Select Vestry of Leicester) are not the governing body who represent this endowment; they do not tell us what the action of the governing body has been, and that they assign no reason why those who desire to oppose the Preamble of the Bill—that is to say, those who desire to contend that at the present moment no scheme should be made and that no sale of the land should take place, are not to have an inquiry in the locality; and why on the contrary they themselves are to have the inquiry transferred from Leicester to London, and to have it take place

    867
    before a Committee of this House instead of taking place before the skilled Inspectors of the Charity Commissioners upon the spot, and at very-little expense. The position of things is this: this land was given to the parish in lieu of common rights immemorially appertaining to the inhabitants of the parish. I call them inhabitants, but they are a qualified class. However, my noble and learned Friend and I, will not dispute about that; and it is convenient to call them inhabitants of the parish. The open lands were enclosed and the common rights therefore destroyed in the year 1764, and the 17½ acres were then allotted to the Churchwardens and Overseers; but the land was allotted to them upon trust for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the parish. The administration of charity was not vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers, but it was vested in the inhabitants themselves. The land was—
    "To be let or otherwise disposed of, and the profits arising from it applied in such manner as the major part of the inhabitants aforesaid assembled in parish meetings to be held at the Parish Church on Easter Tuesday in every year should direct or appoint."
    Now that may seem clumsy, it is not very common, neither is it unprecedented; but in point of fact, from that day to this the charity has been administered in that way. I so read in the Bill—
    "That ever since the date of the said award the land has been let, and the rents have been applied to various purposes, in accordance with the resolutions in that behalf passed annually at the Easter Tuesday meetings."
    That being so your Lordships would think that the Vestry, who are now the Trustees of the legal estate instead of the Churchwardens and Overseers, would have gone on to tell us in this Bill what the inhabitants wished; but, again, you may read the Bill from beginning to end, and you will find nothing of the kind; "the inhabitants" after this point are quietly dropped out, and we read of nothing but the views and the wishes of the Vestry. And now, as to the constitution of the Vestry, I must tell your Lordships something. They do not represent the ratepayers of the parish as a London Vestry does in a London parish; they have a very peculiar constitution, for the
    868
    ratepayers elect 30 persons, I am told—I have not seen the Act, which is quoted in the Bill—and then they submit the 30 names to the Justices of the Peace, who select 20 persons from them; and those persons constitute the Select Vestry. Well, now, I say that the Vestry ought, at the very least, to have presented this matter to the inhabitants of the parish, so that they might have been able to deliberate and express their wishes upon it, I think it would not have been too much if they had propounded the matter at one Easter Tuesday meeting, or, at all events, at some meeting convened so as to be as good as an Easter Tuesday meeting, and then have left it to be pondered over and discussed during the year ensuing, and to be decided at the next Easter meeting. For, observe, my Lords, that it is impossible delay can be injurious in this matter. You may inflict great injury by a hasty determination to sell the land; but there can be no injury in delay, not even money loss, for everybody knows that the value of building land in populous and growing towns does not decrease, but increases, by a postponement of the period of sale. But what have the Vestry done? They convened a meeting, as I understand, last November. It is mentioned in the Petition that I have presented. At that meeting 129 persons attended—65 voted for the Bill and 64 against it. In fact, the resolution in favour of the Bill, which was presented in block to the meeting, was carried by the vote of the Chairman. Your Lordships now, I think, have it that this matter has never been submitted to those persons who are the governing body of this endowment in any regular way. When it was submitted irregularly the votes were equally divided; and now 1,200 of those persons come forward and protest respectfully against any interference by the Legislature until there has been such an inquiry as will thoroughly ascertain the wants, views, and interests of the parish in this matter. Therefore, I think the Bill stands on exceedingly weak grounds as regards the views and needs of the people of St. Margaret's. But I would ask: Why should the aid of Parliament be invoked at all at this stage? The reason assigned in the Bill is that the

    869
    Vestry has no power of selling the "Parish Piece," and accordingly their purposes cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament. Of course it is quits true that the Vestry cannot sell. They could not sell even if they were the Trustees of the Charity (which they are not), because no Charity Trustees can sell without the assent of the Charity Commissioners. By the assent of the Charity Commissioners they could sell; but I do not insist upon that because it is certain that the assent would not be given except in view of making a scheme, and when the Charity Commissioners came to make a scheme they would be hampered by the fact, by the accident, that these Trusts instead of being for purposes which are declared by private deed, are declared by Act of Parliament. Therefore, no satisfactory scheme could be made, because they could not interfere with this unwieldy governing body, and probably they could not mould the Trusts in the way in which an effective schema—would have to mould them. Bat they have, entirely unaffected by this Act, the power of inquiring and of making a report. They may hold an inquiry, as they constantly do under their ordinary statutory powers, for executing which they have a skilled and experienced staff of Inspectors; and such inquiries are held in the most efficient way on the spot where the people are who are interested in them, and almost without expense to the Charity, the whole expense of the skilled labour involved in the inquiry falling on the Charity Commission. There is no reason whatever why in this case such an inquiry should not be held, and the views of the Charity Commissioners, if they have any in the matter, embodied in a Report, which Report, of course, they would communicate to the tribunals that desire it. They may come to the conclusion—we believe they would come to the conclusion—that at the present moment it is not desirable that there should be a scheme at all; that it is better to let the property be employed for the present in the useful way in which it is being used—that is to say, let out in allotments to 147 of the working men of Leicester, and to wait until the growth of the town makes it desirable to have a recreation ground where there are now allotments. The noble and
    870
    learned Lord said, as he is no doubt instructed, that there is at present ample recreation ground for the parishioners of this parish; but I am instructed to the contrary, and that although there is a park within a moderate walk of this particular locality, yet there are two considerations to be taken into account against that; one is that this park is kept as an ornamental ground and is no more a recreation ground for these inhabitants than the enclosed part of St. James's Park would be a recreation ground for the people of Wardour Street and Dean Street in Soho; and the other consideration is, that the town is rapidly growing round this land—this growing parish will have more inhabitants, and those inhabitants will year by year be more distant from the Abbey Park. But, after all, those are local matters; those are matters which would be threshed out by a preliminary inquiry before the Legislature takes any action at all. It has been common enough both for the Court of Chancery and for the Charity Commissioners proposal to inquire, though there is no jurisdiction to frame such a scheme as would be desirable for the purpose of doing what is proposed, and then to thresh out the matter, to indicate the headings of a scheme, and then let the parties go to Parliament with a private Bill to carry it into effect. That would be a reasonable course to take. Or another course would be to come with a Bill simply to untie the hands of the Charity Commissioners, and to provide that they might make a scheme in respect of this charity, though it is established by Act of Parliament, in the same way that they could make a scheme if it had been established by private deed. Either of those courses would be unobjectionable, but to transfer the onus of opposing the Preamble of this Bill to a Parliamentary Committee, who cannot direct a local inquiry, but must act upon such evidence as people can procure from Leicester, and bear the expense of procuring from Leicester—to thus transfer the matter without a very strong case being made for it is, in fact, oppressive, and is a proceeding to which I should hope your Lordships would not lend any countenance. I have omitted one matter that I ought to have mentioned, in con-

    871
    nection with ray statement that a complete change of policy has been adopted of late years with respect to these open lands. That change has found expression in an Act of the Legislature. It was found that under schemes formed no doubt upon the older views of policy, sales were being effected of what are commonly called fuel allotments, and field gardens and recreation grounds; and in the Commons Act of 1876 a provision was introduced forbidding such sales. It is there enacted that as to field gardens and recreation grounds, they shall not be meddled with by scheme at all, and as to fuel allotments they shall not be meddled with, excepting for the purpose of turning them into field gardens and recreation grounds. Now I do not mean to say that that enactment governs the present case; because in this case the land was not originally set out in allotments, it was to be for the benefit of the inhabitants simply; but I cannot help thinking that if the framers of the enactment I have just mentioned had been told that there was land in this position; that being originally given like the fuel allotments in lieu of rights of common for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish, but which had in fact been used for a number of years—40 or more, as I learn from the Petition—for allotments for working men in the parish, and benefiting the parish in that way—I cannot help thinking that those who framed the enactment I have mentioned would have considered that lands in this position were equally worthy of protection. My Lords, I think I have now assigned my reasons why this Bill should not be read a second time. To recapitulate them very briefly, they are these:—Dwellers in populous towns have set their faces more and more against the taking of open lands within the ambit of those towns for the purpose of building. The Legislature has in a case that is strictly analogous forbidden that such open lands should be meddled with. The promoters of this Bill are not the managing body or the governing body of this charity They have not told us the views of the managing body. They have not taken any proper step to ascertain those views. So far as they have taken any step at all, the meeting held was equally divided; and
    872
    here by this Petition 1,200 of them come to your Lordships to deprecate any further proceeding by the Legislature in this matter. Furthermore, the Vestry can get all they can reasonably ask at the present time by going to the Charity Commissioners and asking them to send down a skilled Inspector, who will hold an inquiry in the town of Leicester, and will thresh out all these matters in dispute between us, and ascertain as well as he can, not only what are the facts of the case, but what are the real views and interests of the people of Leicester. My Lords, I submit that these are reasons why you should pause before now reading a second time a Bill of this kind; and that if your Lordships can see your way to pause for six months it will not be one moment too long.
    Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
    *THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I shall detain the House but a very few minutes in commenting upon the speeches that have been made, more especially as it is not necessary for me at this present moment to discuss the merits of the scheme that is before the House as embodied in the Bill. I am in this somewhat singular position—that I agree entirely with the opinions expressed by my noble and learned Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and at the same time I agree, to a very large extent, with the opinions of the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill. With a great deal of his speech I entirely sympathise; but I cannot admit that the reasons he gave were sufficient reasons for rejecting the Bill at the present stage of its proceeding. The noble Lord seemed to me to have two distinct reasons for asking the House to reject the Bill at the present stage: one reason was the absolute one, that it is altogether undesirable to have any scheme at all, on the ground that open spaces should be allowed to remain wherever they exist at present, under present circumstances. If the House adopts that view I quite agree that the scheme ought to be rejected. But the noble Lord gave another reason which seemed to me to be a very reasonable one; he maintained

    873
    that the House is not a fit tribunal to prepare a scheme for a charity of this description; and he added (in which I quite agree with him) that a local inquiry is very desirable. But the noble Lord did not refer to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, that there should be inserted in the Bill a provision that any scheme that is to be sanctioned by Parliament should in the first instance be assented to by the Charity Commissioners. That assent would obviously imply and involve a local inquiry, and not an inquiry here. It seems to me that is a very reasonable suggestion, and one that covers all the important points mentioned by the noble Lord who has just sat down; and I am all the more induced to ask the House to assent to this solution of the question because not longer ago than three years there was a case which was precisely on all-fours with that which is before the House on the present occasion. The case I refer to, and to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention, was that of a Bill dealing with St. Mary's Hospital, Newcastle-on-Tyne. In that Bill, before it was passed through the House, a clause was introduced into the Preamble to this effect—
    "That the Charity Commissioners have put forward a detailed scheme for the administration of the Hospital"
    and so on—
    "That the Commissioners have assented thereto, and it is expedient that the scheme so agreed to and set forth in the Schedule to this Act should be carried into effect."
    In that way you would obtain all the advantage of having a scheme prepared by a skilled body accustomed to the preparation of schemes dealing with public charities; you would have that scheme scheduled to the Act, and thereby Parliament would reserve to itself that right of which I think it should not divest itself, of having the power and control over the scheme to be ultimately carried out. On these grounds I would ask your Lordships to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill on that distinct understanding; that is to say an undertaking to which, as I understand, the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading was prepared to agree on the part of the promoters of the Bill—that the Charity Commissioners
    874
    should be asked to prepare a scheme to be scheduled to the Bill. I would point out to the noble Lord who opposes, that if in that scheme, when prepared and scheduled, he finds anything to object to, he will have ample opportunity of presenting his objections when the Bill comes a third time before your Lordships' House.
    *THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, after the weighty opinion which has been expressed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committes, I shall not take up the time of the House at any length; but I wish, being conversant with the circumstances in the town of Leicester, to say that a great deal of the speech of the noble Lord, who has moved the rejection of the Bill, must, I think, have been made in ignorance of the local circumstances in this case. Now, the Select Vestry here, although it is so called, does in reality represent fairly and completely the predominant opinion of that very large parish of St. Margaret's; and when the noble Lord says he is asked to present a Petition signed by 1,200 of the inhabitants, and founds himself upon that, I must remind him that 1,200 is only a very small proportion indeed of the 100,000 people who inhabit that parish.
    *LORD HOBHOUSE: It is signed by 1,200 ratepayers. The 100,000 are not ratepayers.
    *THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: Quite so; but I venture to say that your Lordship's House ought not to be asked to reject on Second Reading a Bill brought before it under these circumstances on the score that a small minority of 1,200 ratepayers have sent in a Petition against it. I venture to say that if Private Bills are to be treated in this fashion—if Private Bills, which do not find any great opposition in the localities from which they come, are not to be judged by a Private Bill Committee, you may as well abolish Private Bill legislation altogether. The fact is, my Lords, that the predominant opinion in the parish is in favour of the scheme. It is not for me to say whether the scheme is the wisest that could be prepared or not; but the House may fairly take it that the scheme represents really the opinion of the great body of the inhabitants; and after the full explanation which was given of it by the noble and learned

    875
    Lord who moved the Bill, I trust your Lordships will have no hesitation in giving it a Second Reading.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to say a few words with reference to what was stated by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, to point out that I had intimated, in moving the Bill, I thought that it was a case in which it was desirable, and the propriety of which might very well be recognised, for the Charity Commissioners to look into the matter and prepare a scheme, although I gave reasons why I thought it was not desirable to regard their view as final, but to preserve the control of Parliament over the scheme. I am informed that there is nothing to prevent such a local inquiry as my noble Friend has spoken of being held by the Charity Commissioners, and their framing a scheme upon it in ample time for proceeding with the further stages of this Bill during the present Session. Obviously, under those circumstances, it would be extremely undesirable, when everybody admits that if anything is to be done by way of dealing with this land by sale, and your Lordships would not, I think, be willing to say that all the expense shall be entirely thrown away which has been incurred in introducing this Bill, when all that the noble Lord desires and requires can be arranged for and really completed during this Session, and the Bill then passed upon the Report, dealing with the matter according to the method which seems desirable after that Report appears. Parliament would in that way still keep its control over the matter after the local inquiry has been made, which will give the views and feelings of the inhabitants, as well as their suggestions in the preparation of the scheme.
    On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.

POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 51.)
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committcd to the Standing Committee.
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord Thring.)

THE EDUCATION CODE.
*LORD NORTON, in rising to call attention to the new Education Code, said: My Lords, I venture to draw attention to the draft of the new edition of the Education Code, which has been laid upon the Table of the House, and which after a certain number of days becomes law. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will agree with me that the annual edition of the Education Code ought not to pass wholly unnoticed and wholly unexplained by the Representative in your Lordships' House of the Education Department. I confess myself that I think we are getting into a dangerous habit of conceding to Departments the power of by-legislation on important subjects. There is an absolute temptation to successive Ministers to make alterations in the Code in order to identify themselves-with the new editions which they are bound to make year by year. We have had the Sandon Code; we had the Mundella Code; we have had a series of Codes made by various Ministers, whose names are honourably connected with them, but very much without the concert of those who have to administer the Codes, and whose difficulties in carrying out this most important matter of national education are increased by a perpetually altering Code of which they can know very little. I venture to say that very few of your Lordships have attempted to read the Code, and that of those who have done so still fewer will have understood it. The complications of endless improvements are worse, I think, than would be finality, which would be possible, if the Code were only more simple. Nobody can doubt the advance of national education in this country since the Act of 1870; but I think this multiplication of new directions from year to year, at all events, endangers it from a reaction, if not an unconscious departure from the original and fundamental principles on which the Education Act was passed. Now, this new edition (which I think is the 21st,—the system has come of age) was said to carry out no alteration, whereas there appears in the Appendix no less than eight pages of new articles. There was no alteration in 1888

877
pending the Royal Commission's Report. In 1889, a Code was brought forward but was dropped, because it was said not to carry out sufficiently the Report of that Commission, and further Minutes in Council were passed in consequence during that year. The Code of 1890, last years', embodied the improved Code with the Minutes which had been passed to further improve it. Now comes the draft Code which has been laid on the Table for this year, which, I think, needs at least to be considered both as to what it does, and, to my mind, much more for what it leaves undone. Now, first, as to what it does. Of all these eight pages of alterations not many need be considered. Some are very good. One, for instance, by the insertion of two or three words in the 13th clause—"and is upwards of 14," which even a student of the Code might pass over unobserved, it enables a clever child to pass the top standard before he is 14, and yet to go on until the age of 14, to use the phrase employed in the present system, "earning money for the school," whereas up to this time it has actually been to the interest of managers of schools to keep back clever children from passing the top standard, because they would no longer be profitable to them. Now, that is an obvious improvement and removal of a blot in the present system. There is a still clearer improvement in providing for a better classification of scholars by the schoolmasters being left entirely free to classify their scholars, and the Inspectors being bound to follow their classification in examinations. There is also an improvement in doing away with the distinction between teachers as trained and untrained. Instead of that distinction it is only stipulated that all must pass at least one year in a Training College. Then there are a great many improvements as to the grants and certificates of pupil teachers, and there are additions to the curriculum of study. A knowledge of the metric system is required. There is also an addition to specific subjects of mensuration and navigation. With regard to an alteration in reference to the subject of drawing, I rather demur to the new edition. The existing Code makes drawing
878
imperative in all schools. I had yesterday a letter from the manager of a small rural school, in which there are only 40 children, stating that as the boys were going out early to the plough such easy and really necessary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, which they could make use of, were to a great extent obliged to be given up for this requirement of drawing, of which they certainly could not make much use. But what I object to more is that this new Code makes it imperative that the drawings of these children shall be approved by the South Kensington Department. In the first place, it is creating a needless, if not mischievous, duality of Departmental action; but still more is it objectionable, as it seems tome the Inspectors are perfectly competent to examine and pass the ordinary performances of children in the elementary schools. If our great Inspectors, first-class men such as Matthew Arnold, are not able to pass judgment upon the drawings of little boys and girls in elementary schools, I really think we had better not have so high a class of Inspectors as we now have. I know what is aimed at in this change is a much higher kind of artistic drawing and design for the purposes of the manufacturers at the public expense. But I venture to say this is entering upon a new phase, of technical instruction, in our elementary instruction; and the new requirement of one class—subject at least to characterise a school as efficient, contemplates probably the elimination of the smallest rural schools from public aid altogether. I have only one more word to say as to the alterations in this Code, but it is upon an important matter—that is, the quiet omission of what I will call the experimental limit of numbers of day students at colleges, under this Code. In the existing Code of 1890, the day-training of teachers being a new thing, a limit of 200 students was proposed as sufficient for a first experiment. Now, I will ask, has there been time yet for experiment—can the experiment be considered to have been really made? I understand that the reason assigned for abolishing all limit is that some allowance is necessary to be made for waste, and that if you are to have 200 masters from day

879
colleges you must have a certain additional number to make up the vacancies which will constantly occur as they pass out. Well, I maintain that if that is the case the number to represent that waste ought to be stated in the Code; and, at all events, some time for limited experiment is due to the misgivings of those private founders of residential colleges whose foundations, furnished at their own cost, have been accepted by the State. Those persons considered that the method and regular life and discipline of residence is the most essential part of the training of a schoolmaster; they considered it was essential for his own training and essential for giving him the power afterwards of training pupils in the schools, and especially for training their characters, which they consider the most important part of national education. The mere substitution of daily lectures is proposed; but I appeal to year Lordships whether it can be anything like an equivalent for a two years' residence in a training college, and whether it is not significant of the secular principle which we are unconsciously adopting in national education. To quote a sarcasm in General Booth's Darkest England, we are adopting a system which is fitted not to educate children, but to pass them through standards. It is obvious that the mere attendance at lectures cannot have the same effect in training a master to take charge of a national school as two years' residence in a residential college. But besides that, the proposal made by the Code, interpreted by accompanying circulars, will create a competition between the residential colleges and day colleges which is not equal. There are advantages afforded in the day colleges greater than in the residential colleges. The lecturers in day colleges may give the papers and assign passes to their own students. That might give them an enormous advantage over those in the residential colleges who are submitted for examination by Inspectors who come ab extra, and have nothing to do personally with the students they have to examine. Bat besides that, is it not also more attractive to avoid the discipline of a residential college and to live freely at home and only attend lectures at great institutions of University rank, opening to their
880
ambition degrees, honours, and the higher professions, rather than the humbler national schoolmasterships for which the training is expressly given at the public expense? Is not such a system very likely to attract men to the higher ambition of entering the learned professions? Now, I will say no more about what this new Code does, but I should beg to be allowed to say a few words further about what it leaves undone, because I think that is far more important. The Code leaves uneradi-cated the condemned principle of piecework payment for national education. I know the defence that may be taken from the Report of the Royal Commission, but I would beg your Lordships to form your own opinion and judgment upon that. It is, I venture to say, an absolutely condemned principle as a mode of payment for national education, and it is left incompletely repealed without any reason and with all the objections unremoved. Even the so-called "fixed grant" which was introduced by the last Code is not fixed at all, but there is a grant for infants which varies from 7s. a head to 9s.; there are the grants of 5s., 4s., 2s., and the chief grants of 12s. 6d. and 14s.; all being in inverse ratio to the need of the schools for aid—that is to say, the higher the position of the school the higher the aid, while the lower and humbler it is the smaller is the amount of aid to be obtained. All these gradations of pay vary according to the Reports of the Inspectors and depend upon the equipment of the schools, which, of course, in the case of poor rural schools can hardly compete with the rich. Board schools. Some of these gradations are proportioned to the intelligence of the children, and the accident of their, being town instead of country children will reward for what has nothing whatever to do with the efficiency of the master or the equipment of the school. Besides those instances of the variableness of the increased fixed grant, there are a great number of the old direct piece payments retained. Conceive discipline being priced at 1s. a head. Then there is 1s. for music; 1s. for class subjects, and 4s. for passes in specific subjects, in the same inverse ratio to needs, so that the higher the subject and the richer the class the more aid given. "To him

881
that hath shall be given" is certainly the principle of these variable grants. There should be free scholarships for poor children rising to higher studies, which well-to-do parents should pay for. It is said that these points are not referred to, because this year is looked at as a year of reconstruction. It was talked of in that way by the Vice President of the Council in the discussion in the other House last year, and there is to a certain extent an expectation of important changes. The 17s. 6d. limit of grants has been long talked of, and the question of the exemption of schools from rating; but both those points have been postponed for some darkly-hinted legislation. A Bill is expected to be brought in this Session relating to what is called free or assisted education. But upon that hangs the whole character of the system, and of the Code. Upon it may depend a complete change of system. It is impossible, of course, to discuss a Bill which is not before us, and it is furthermore quite impossible to judge of what sails under two colours; but the drift must be to do away with the payment of fees in our national schools. Whether it is to be an absolute abolition of fees or only assistance in the direction of their total abolition, that must be the tendency of the legislation which is hinted at. Now, it is worth considering that, broadly speaking, anything like the abolition involves the absolute collapse of all the voluntary undertakings in connection with national education in the country. That it certainly must do, because voluntary schools, could not live without fees; the subscriptions they receive must be aided by fees, and larger fees are willingly paid for children in voluntary schools, simply because the people throughout the country prefer the kind of education which is given in those schools, an education which includes religious instruction. But a more important objection is, that it does away with the last vestige of parental responsibility for the cost of educating children, and adopts a complete public provision for private duty. Take two neighbouring ratepayers. One has, we will say, several children at the national school, and the other has none. If fees are abolished, both will equally contribute
882
to the cost of national education, and there will not be a farthing more paid by the parent who is using the school for his children than is paid by the other who has no use of it. That strikes at the independent spirit of the country, and destroys all sense of parental responsibility, as far as the parent can afford it, for the care and education of his own children. Handing over the care of children to the State in loco parentis is a very serious proposal. It is not consonant either with the spirit or the habit of this country. A very significant illustration of our increased inclination to State schools was given last year, when a large sum of money was appropriated by Parliament, first for the redemption of beer licences, and afterwards, that proposal having been dropped, handed over to the County Councils without any specific appropriation being made by Parliament, but only a hint at technical instruction being left very much to the caprice of the County Council themselves. That was really a case of money being appropriated by Parliament for one purpose and transferred to some indefinite recommendation of education nobody knows exactly what. I defy anybody to say that such a proceeding has any precedent whatever in the history of Parliament. The London County Council have made up their minds to use it in relief of rates—that is to say, to conceal to a certain extent the enormous increase of their expenditure. Other County Councils have set manufacturers and agriculturists of every kind each proposing that the money should be spent in establishing a school of apprenticeship to his own particular trade. They have not ascertained whether this is to be an annual grant; but it is quite enough for them to know that this gift has come from the Treasury. They look upon it as having come from heaven, and they have made a hundred different plans to spend it, the supposition being that it would be employed for some purpose of advancing technical instruction in our schools throughout the country. I do not think your Lordships know, unless you have seen the Return which I moved for last year, and which was laid on the Table lately, of all the public money which is yearly spent for education in

883
this country, the estimates for which are scattered in different Departments. It amounts altogether, including Industrial and Reformatory Schools, and others, much nearer £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 a year than the £3,000,000 which is so often quoted; and it seems to me that if Treasury largesses are to be thrown on the top of this large expenditure we shall very soon find that the cry which has already begun in London, and which is heard in all the large towns, will become much louder, and will lead to an absolute re-action against the system of national education altogether. I believe that we are being led into a general system of State direction of the entire education of this country; Under cover of a false name elementary education is being made to mean anything. All I say is, that if we have made up our minds to State education we had better do it openly and not under cover of a false name. But even if we are to have State direction of all the education in this country; there would still remain the question whether general taxation is to relieve all parents in the country from any special contribution to the education of their own children. I say, on the contrary, that it is essential to the spirit of independence in this country, and to the sense of public duty, that there should be no public aid afforded whatever, except that which is absolutely necessary in cases either of poverty or other parental inability to discharge the whole expense of their children's education. If that limitation were made, we should have some chance of escaping the reaction which I can foresee is coming against national education altogether on the present system. Remember what an outcry was made the other day when it was found that the London School Board rate had risen from 3d. to 11d. That caused a very indignant outcry; and I consider that if we are going on to deal with higher education in the schools, we must, in order to prevent a violent reaction against it, throw upon parents the responsibility of bearing the main expense of their children's education as far as they are able to do it. Clever children of the poorer classes should be provided for by free scholarships, when they are able to
884
make use of the higher education; or their fees might be remitted, but those parents who are able should pay fees covering the whole expense at least in higher schools. I consider that if State direction were thus allowed, although the payment being made by the parents, we should still have to check the Department from a licence of theory which is indulged in to such an extent. It is in that way that at this moment apprenticeship to trades is being included in elementary education. Children are indiscriminately kept at school and often prevented from obtaining a valuable part of the education of industry. There is, apparently, an absolute contempt for common industry, and every endeavour is made to keep labourers' children at school far beyond the age at which they ought to begin industry—for instance, to keep a sailor-boy from the sea in order to teach him at school to read Shakespeare. And now I understand under this Code there will be carried out much more extensively the keeping at evening book-studies poor children who have been hard at work all the day. If we could establish a reasonable mode of payment for education; if we could draw a line between elementary instruction and apprenticeship; if we could adapt our Educational Code to the requirements of various localities, and various classes of society, we should then have a system which would really be much simpler and more easy to carry out—probably a final Code, as all other countries have—not requiring to be perpetually changing, and we should have our schools adequately supplied with the money they require for efficiency, and not dependent on a precarious income earned by cramming children through a gridiron of standards. I therefore hope my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council will be so good as to meet the objections which I have ventured to raise both against the new provisions in this Code as to day colleges and as to the postponement of improvements which might have been introduced into it.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, there is one point only in the Code to which I should like to call attention. I will not say anything with regard to free education, though the noble Lord has rather invited us to enter upon

885
that broad field. Nor can I share with him the gloomy view which he appears to take of the system of education pursued in our elementary schools. I must confess that I am not quite satisfied with all we have done. Still, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that in our schools the last 20 years has been a period of magnificent progress; and I venture to say that the whole of the people whoso children go to those schools, talking of them broadly, most cordially approve of the system of education as it now exists in them. We have had for the last 20 years attacks both upon the Code and upon its changes; but as far as I know it comes to this: that disapproval is always sure to be expressed by people who do not desire them; if the changes which we ourselves wish are introduced we throw up our hands; but if we find they are changes which our neighbours wish to make, we find ourselves taking a very gloomy view of the whole affair, and say that the Code is over laden with changes. The fact is, as long as the system of national education is as tentative as it is now, you must introduce for the quiet good working of the schools changes from year to year. I am hostile to large changes; but I think the Code this year hits the mark in showing that careful and anxious desire to facilitate the working of the changes which so largely characterised the Code of last year. I see nothing revolutionary in the changes in the present Code; on the contrary, I think they show a desire to help on the working of the schools, and I am very grateful to my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, as head of the Education Department, for them. The one point, however, to which I should like to call attention is that of the day training colleges. I think we hardly realise to ourselves the enormous importance of the question of the training of our teachers; we do not sufficiently consider the magnitude of the interests with which we are dealing when we touch that question of the teachers' education. They are a perfect army now; I think there are at present some 60,000 men and women who are engaged in elementary teaching in the public schools in this country. I would venture to say that owing to the great increase in the Board schools, and also in many cases to the
886
lack of attention on the part of managers, the whole formation of the character of children in many schools rests entirely on the teachers, and most nobly have teachers responded to that charge. Both men and women have exercised the most careful supervision over the characters of the children under their charge, considering that supervision to be quite as important as the intellectual teaching they have to impart. Surely, then, anything which might affect or lower the character of this great army of teachers is a matter of the greatest national importance. And it affects not alone that great body of teachers, but the welfare of some 5,000,000 children attending the elementary schools in this country; so that the question is indeed a very large one. With regard to the day training colleges, I was one of the members of the Royal Commission on Education who earnestly recommended that a trial of those colleges should be made. It was clearly proved before the Commission that we wanted further means and assistance to ensure that all the teachers in our schools should in time be trained teachers, and it was shown that this was a subject of the gravest importance. But I would particularly ask your Lordships to remember that that Royal Commission laid very great stress upon the day training colleges being treated at first as an experiment. After the most careful investigation and cross-questioning of the best Inspectors, they came to the conclusion that the residential training colleges were absolutely the best for producing teachers, and therefore they wished the day training colleges to be treated purely as an experiment. That is to say, that the subjecting these teachers for a couple of years to the excellent home-training which those valuable institutions, the residential colleges, afforded was absolutely priceless in its effect upon the after lives of the teachers, and therefore as regarded their future influence with the children. And our best witnesses said, though they would like to see the experiment of day colleges tried, they hoped that care would be taken to prevent interference with the residential training colleges, as anything of that kind—if anything were done to impair their work—would be a great national loss. There are 43 of these residential

887
training colleges at present, and they constitute a very important body of institutions. Half a million of money has been sunk upon buildings in connection with them, showing still very great devotion upon the part of their supporters. They are now largely supported by annual grants from the State, but the original setting up of those institutions was to a large extent the result of voluntary efforts. With regard to what the Royal Commission said, I think I ought to emphasise that, if I am not detaining your Lordships for a few minutes. They were unanimous in recommending the experiment of a scheme for the day training of teachers—that is, of day training colleges; but they wished that it should be tried on a limited scale, as they had strongly expressed their opinion that the existing system of residential training is best in itself. Then, again, they accentuated that in this way: they considered that it was advisable the experiment should be made of training students in non-residential lodgings, but that only a limited number of students, should at first be assisted for that purpose by the State. Then they went further, in pressing their point, by saying that Parliament would have to look at one matter with great caution; they said that the serious attention of Parliament, if this experiment was made, would have to be directed to the question of how they were to secure the religious and moral instruction of the teachers in the day training colleges. The Royal Commission, therefore, laid great stress upon the advisability of the experiment, but suggested that it should be treated purely as an experiment. The points in the new Code which have led me to make these remarks are these: Last year the experiment was announced, and the number of admissions to the day training colleges was to be limited to 200, but now that limit appears to have be an taken away, and I do not think that the interval of the few months that have elapsed have afforded an adequate experience of how the day training colleges worked. I am not at all hostile to the experiment, be it understood, but I view with no little alarm the sudden sweeping away of the limit of number and leaving it quite open instead of its being a tentative measure. Then I would also point out that a great number of establishments
888
are making application to be admitted to rank as day training colleges. I hear of such applications from Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff, Bangor, and there are altogether a considerable number of them. There seems to be very little security exacted for the religious and moral training of these future teachers of our children. I shall be glad to hear that that is not so, and that care is taken, not only with regard to moral, but religious training, and that in the mass of the schools in this country those responsible for them have decided that there shall be religious teaching given. Surely, then, if that is so, it is of the greatest importance that the teachers themselves should be qualified to impart religious teaching. Again, there is a third point with regard to this matter of the training colleges which a little alarms me. I cannot help thinking it has been unintentional on the part of my noble Friend the Lord President, but it seems to me that there is some inequality established already between the two classes of institutions; that is, between the day and the residential colleges.; We do not want special favour shown to the residential training colleges, though by universal consent they are the best for the training of teachers; but I submit there should be no incidental advantage given to the day training colleges as against the residential institutions, otherwise there may be a rush to the day training colleges, because that is a much easier process for the teacher to go through than in the residential colleges. Now, I find that students in the day colleges are allowed a year to prepare for matriculation, whereas in residential colleges, under the regulations of the Education Department, they have little more than four months' preparation. I think in some way that must be due to a mistake, otherwise it would establish a serious inequality as against the residential establishments in favour of the day colleges. I have no doubt that could easily be remedied in the Department, but it is a matter which is seriously felt already by the heads of existing training colleges. Then there is another point: in one of the circulars of the Department it is stated that they will be prepared to accept the results of examinations held by the

889
authorities of the University or College to which the day colleges are attached. The examinations of students in connection with the residential colleges are conducted by the highest skilled officers of the Education Department, who all act upon the same lines and have a given standard for the whole country, and who have nothing to do with those residential colleges. It cannot surely be intended that the Department should accept the examinations held by the colleges themselves; but it does seem, however, as if the examinations in the day training colleges may be connected by the authorities of those colleges themselves. It surely cannot be intended that the Government will accept the results of examinations so conducted as being on the same level of value, and I think the day colleges should not be exempt from the high standard of examination that the residential colleges are bound to submit to. I call attention to that point, because I see the Cardiff College is announcing that its examinations will be accepted by the Department instead of the examination by the Government officers. Independently of this point of view, I think that gradually these day training colleges might afford a sort of back-door to the profession which is exactly what the friends of education do not want. They are all trying to raise the standard of education, and of masters and mistresses; and to establish anything like a back-door to the profession through the day colleges, where the examination is not so strict and high, would be a real injury to the whole profession. That we know to be the case in the medical profession, and the same condition of things will creep in here if a very careful watch is not kept. I also notice there is an attempt made to secure the Government grant of £10, which students are encouraged to obtain as a sort of capitation grant. Those are the points to which I would venture to call the attention of my noble Friend the President of the Council, and I think all who are interested in the education and welfare of the children of the country may well beg the Department to keep very watchful care over the residential colleges as doing a work which is priceless for the State. We would ask them to take care that the religious and moral training of the teachers are secured, and
890
that there should be no preferential advantages given to the day over the residential training colleges. I am perfectly sure those are the wishes of my noble Friend the head of the Department, and I hope your Lordships will excuse me for having gone into the subject in some detail.
*EARL FORTESCUE: I will not trouble your Lordships with more than a few observations, but I wish to support the appeal which has been made by my noble Relative to the head of the Department not to allow what was recommended by the Royal Commission to be tried only experimentally and tentatively to be established before the experiment can have been considered to have been anything like fully or fairly tried—not to remove all restriction upon it as I understand has been done, and to permit the indefinite extension in connection with the Department of these day training colleges. Surely it is very important if we are making an experiment that we should allow a sufficient lapse of time and continue the experiment long enough really to be able to form an adequate judgment upon its success or failure, and that we should not prematurely accept it as a proved success, and, as it were, compromise ourselves and commit ourselves to its extension. I quite agree with my noble Friend who opened the Debate, that it is very difficult to understand why the general school Inspectors, a distinguished and able body of men be it remarked, who are considered capable of judging of needlework, should not be thought capable, without the assistance of the Science and Art Department, of judging of the drawings done by the children in elementary schools. I should have renewed my protest against the adoption from a preceding Government of a mode of dealing with the school fees, which seems to me to be superseding the clauses of an Act of Parliament by something very like an evasion; only that the whole question of the payment of fees and of free or assisted education is so soon to be dealt with that it is hardly worth while bestowing any attention on words that are likely to be soon superseded. I will not be tempted into saying a word about the merits or demerits of free or assisted education. I have more than once ex-

891
pressed my views in regard to them, both vivâ voce and in writing, and I have seen no reason to change them. Bat I think we have quite enough to consider in the Code itself, and what lies within its four corners, without travelling into the consideration of a measure that is not yet before us. I cannot sit down without congratulating the country and Her Majesty's Government, and especially the noble Lord at the head of the Education Department, on the very great improvement which has been made in the direction of common sense and common fairness by the Code of 1890. The introduction of the principle that teachers are to classify the children in the different subjects in a manner that will most facilitate their instruction, and that Her Majesty's Inspectors are to respect such classification, seems so obviously consonant with common sense and common fairness that my only marvel is that the Department, which for many years was, I think, more characterised by great ability than by good practical common sense, should have maintained a different system for so long. What I have heard from teachers in elementary schools is that that improvement has been a very great relief to them, that it has greatly facilitated and benefitted the teaching in the schools; and I think the country, therefore, is very much indebted to the noble Lord for having courageously adopted such a very great improvement as he introduced in the Code of last year.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers the question put to him, I would, with great deference, venture to say a few words upon one matter affecting the Code with regard to a subject which has been wanting from the Code for a long time—that is, the subject of geography. I do not for a moment under-rate the subject of drawing, which is now one of the obligatory subjects in the elementary schools; I consider drawing is very useful indeed for general training; but I should like to point out that beyond the desire which we have of giving boys and girls the means of raising their condition in life we have another object to keep in view, which is the position which the children are to fill in future. I think the total omission of geography as a, subject for boys for another
892
subject for which they will probably have afterwards no great use is a matter which deserves the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Wherever I have been among the rural classes I have been struck with the total ignorance of boys as to the common elements of geography, a subject which they certainly ought to understand, or at least to have a general acquaintance with, if they are in future to discharge their duties as citizens in voting upon public matters. It seems to me absurd that you should call upon a man to give a vote upon the concerns of an Empire which extends all over the globe, when in giving it, he is not only positively ignorant of its outlying parts, of the position of the colonies and foreign countries with which we have to deal, but unacquainted even with the geography of his native country. I do think, therefore, that geography should, to a certain extent at least, be one of the obligatory subjects in the elementary schools of this country.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, it is not at all unnatural, I think, that my noble Friend should call attention to the Code which interests so many throughout the country, and which may have such permanent effects upon the education of the people of the country; but I am not prepared to follow the noble Lord into those extraneous subjects which have nothing whatever to do with the Code, but which relate rather to the subject of higher education in various relations. They do not come at all under the general elementary subjects with which I have to deal, nor indeed are they before us at all; and if, as my noble Friend seems to think, they speedily will be before us, it is, I think, a pity he did not reserve his speech, and make it when he will have a better opportunity of dealing with the subject than by calling attention to particular portions of it of which he has just spoken. With regard to the last remark which fell from my noble Friend Lord Sidmouth, I may be allowed to say that I am quite as conscious as he is of the importance of geography being-taught, but I am also conscious of the importance of not overloading the necessary subjects of the schools. Though the ordinary school books will, no doubt, give the scholars a great deal of geogra-

893
phical information, it is largely taught as one of the class subjects, and is one which, is more taken up than any other, and I believe that an increasing knowledge of geography is being obtained throughout the country. I do not say that is the case in every school, some of the smaller schools may not go into the class subjects at all, but if they do geography is generally taught; and if the noble Lord will look at the Schedule he will see that geography is so far taught as to impart a knowledge of our own country and its dependencies. That is a part of the instruction of the children. With regard to the objections, or rather comments, made by the noble Lord who opened this discussion, he stated that it was wrong to say there were no alterations in the Code when there were eight pages of alterations; but he practically admitted, when he came to discuss them, that they were the finishing off of the Code of last year as regards a great many of them, having, in fact, been introduced by a supplemental addition, and they are now put in form as part of the entire Code, and though some may call it unintelligible, I venture to think it is more intelligible than any Code that has ever been published before. We have endeavoured to give as much assistance to the understanding it as we can, for the instructions to the Inspectors have been published at the same time as the Code; and, therefore, whoever chooses to read them may know the mind of the Government with regard to the duties of its Inspectors, and through them towards the population at large. Then, with regard to the points raised by my noble Friend, Lord Fortescue, and the noble Lord who spoke of classification and its great advantages. I find that has been much appreciated throughout the country, and it is very natural that it should be so, because it is much better that children should not be forced into a standard for which on all points they are not really qualified; but that the teachers should have the opportunity of classifying and bringing; them into line with other children, so as to develope each in the subject in which he is proficient. Then, with regard to drawing, my noble Friend seems to be surprised that the examinations in that subject should be referred to the Science and Art Department. An attempt was made to bring it under what
894
you may call the Educational Department proper, by Mr. Mundella, and what was the consequence? The consequence was, that the money having to be found by the Education Department instead of by the Science and Art Department, it came under the limit of 17s. 6d., and there was an increasing abandonment of the subject up to some 5,000 or 6,000 schools, and soon drawing would have ceased to be taught throughout the country. Well, now, we have brought it back into the same position as it was before; it is simply an illustration of the old adage that "Who pays the piper may call for the dances," and we have decided that the Department which pays shall examine into the drawings. My noble Friend seems to think that first-class men from Oxford and Cambridge—wranglers—ought to be the best examiners in drawing. I do not imagine they think so, and they are quite content that the scholars shall be examined in that subject by those who have studied at Kensington or in the Art Schools elsewhere, and who would be much better able to arrive at a conclusion whether the children had been properly taught than the Inspectors. With regard to needlework, we have now, in fact, Inspectresses of that branch of teaching, who are able to look much more carefully into the thing than has ever been done before. Then my noble Friend went into the question of fixed grants, upon which we had a discussion last year. I will not venture upon that discussion again, for a very good reason. The Code of 1890 has not yet been in operation quite six months, and, therefore, as to the effect of these fixed grants, whether they are going to have the bad effect which my noble Friend seems to anticipate or not, it is a little too soon to come to that conclusion; and we may, I think, keep the Code in the form in which it was last year, since we have had only six months' experience of its working. Then comes the question of the day-training colleges, upon which I am glad my noble Friend Lord Harrowby has also spoken, because I am most anxious that it should be understood that we quite feel this is a tentative process. The day colleges have hardly got into operation yet, and, perhaps, it may be interesting to the House to know what the state of

895
things is at this moment. There are at present six colleges which, are recognised as training schools for students to attend, namely, King's College, London; Owens College, Manchester; Mason's College, Birmingham; University College, Cardiff; Durham College of Science, Newcastle; and University College, Nottingham. The present number of students in these colleges is 170; so that we have not yet arrived at the number of 200 laid down in the Code of last year. It is quite obvious that if there had been the full number they would have increased automatically in the second year to 400. That had to be taken into account; otherwise the schools would have broken up, and they could not have been kept in working order, unless they had been kept supplied year by year. The consequence of the process now going on, as far as we can make out, is that there will be certain additions, probably next year, allowed to come in. At Cardiff there will be an addition of 20; at Newcastle 10; at Sheffield it is proposed to have 20; at Liverpool, to which my noble Friend alluded, but which is not yet open, it is expected there will be 30; and at Leeds, the Yorkshire College, 15. That would make 95 additional. So that one may reckon that, in two years from this time, the outside number reached will be about 530. Now, I want to call your Lordships' attention to this point. There will also be a great number of additional candidates for the Training Colleges. You will observe by the Code that the pupil teachers conclude their career by a Queen's Scholarship Examination; and if a teacher becomes a Queen's Scholar, he is entitled to admission to the training colleges. There will probably be a greater number of Queen's Scholars than there have ever been in that position before. My noble Friend seemed to be in dread that the pupils might leave their chosen sphere of teaching if they went to day colleges for training; but I confess I do not see the risk he speaks of. They have to make a statement when they go in that their object is to become teachers, and that they are not entering for any other purpose: they must sign a declaration that they intend bonâ fide to adopt and follow the profession of teacher. So that as far as we
896
can bind them we do, having given them the opportunity at 16 of giving up the career of pupil teaching. At the end of the time they are in a position to be admitted to the training colleges. Therefore, there will be a great number of them coming on. I should imagine the number of students at present in the residential colleges is about 3,290, and there will be about the same for the current year. In the day training colleges, in 1891–2, there will be 435 students, and afterwards about 530, whose places will have to be supplied each year. Half of those places have to be supplied annually from the Queen's Scholars. Taking them at 4,824, 2,412 places must be yearly filled. For these there will be about 5,000 candidates available. Under the present pupil teacher system, the student has had an education for teaching as a pupil teacher; and, therefore, that to a certain extent obviates, the objection which my noble Friend made as to the particular training in day colleges that they would not have obtained technical knowledge. Then with regard to the comment made by my noble Friend about matriculation; there has been a correspondence about that subject. The day scholars will have an advantage in that respect; but the students in residential colleges will have it as regards the certificate. Whether we can bring the two to a more equal position is a subject for consideration, and if we can manage to do it we shall. But really there has been a balance to a certain extent struck between the two, though the one gets the advantage at the beginning and the other at the end of the term. With regard to the question of moral training, my noble Friend will observe that the authorities of a day training college must have a local Committee, which will be held responsible for the moral discipline of the students, and, as a matter of fact, I believe it is ascertained that the normal teacher will undertake the moral training, and in that way we endeavour to secure it. I am afraid that in the residential colleges we cannot always secure it, because it is notorious that there have been occasions when there have been want of discipline and order in some of the residential colleges which were much to be deprecated, and which, I hope,

897
will not occur in the day training colleges. I have now, I think, noticed all the points which have been raised. I am not aware that I have left unnoticed any question which has been put to me by any noble Lord; but I would rather, on some of those points, that the time had arrived at which we should have published our account of what has taken place so far during the past year. The Report is not yet upon your Lordships' Table for the year; when it is we shall be in a better position for dealing with facts and figures, and your Lordships will then be in possession, in the same way as ourselves, of the circumstances which have come before the Department. But I think I may say this upon the whole, that when your Lordships have heard the objections which have been made today, and have combined them with the eulogies which my noble Friends have been good enough to make upon the other parts of the Code, you may come, upon the whole, to the conclusion that, so far as can be ascertained, the elementary system of education is working well—working far more satisfactorily both as regards the pupils and the teachers; that it will, to a very great extent, remove the friction which existed in former times on account of the necessity of the individual examination of every child, and that it is more calculated to put them in a fitting position in the future. One other point is, that my noble Friend (Lord Norton) seemed to deprecate the evening continuation schools, the value of which has been proved by every educational authority in the country. It is admitted in these days that children who are taken too early from the elementary schools should be able to go back to their studies in the evenings, not after they have been working their brains all day at some employment which is a strain upon them, but after they have been working in the fields; and I can speak from personal knowledge that, in a great many instances, children go on in that way continuing their education in the evening schools with very excellent results. I think that it will be found to be one of the advantages of this Code that whereas there was formerly a great difficulty in children having to be sent for examination a considerable distance, the Education Department have now provided
898
that the managers may have an examination themselves, and may send up the results where there are less than 20 children; so that we have done all we can to make it easy for children to be examined in these schools. I believe the result of this alteration will be that more children will go to these evening schools, and that great advantage will follow not in the extension of education, but in the direction of increasing the education which the children have acquired before, and more firmly fixing it in their minds. I have only now to say that I am much obliged to your Lordships for hearing me thus far upon this subject, and to add that I am quite ready to answer any further questions which may be addressed to me, except, of course, upon subjects which are still in embryo.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I would ask the noble Lord not to lose sight of the question of examining scholars in the day training colleges by Government Inspectors and not by their own local examiners. That, I think, is a point of considerable importance.
*VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I quite recognise its importance; but my noble Friend will see how difficult it is for these schools to admit examiners of ours instead of having examinations by the professors belonging to their own colleges; but we should be in a position, having the papers sent to us (though we should not be able to alter the procedure which they follow in their own colleges), to re-assess them afterwards as regards the students in the different colleges throughout the country, and to say what position they ought to take as teachers.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I am glad the noble Lord agrees that it is a very important point.

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENTS BILL—(No 53.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD BASING: In asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time I need only state in one word that its object is to clear up doubts which have arisen as to the source from which the registration expenses should be defrayed in the case of parishes which are within

  899
  Parliamentary boroughs, but outside municipal boroughs. This Bill provides that those expenses shall be paid, half out of the poor rate and half out of the county fund, which is analogous to the existing law as regards other places throughout the Kingdom.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT, 1890, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 58.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, in the much to be regretted absence of the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which has come up to your Lordships from the House of Commons. Its object is extremely simple. Your Lordships are probably aware, from some interesting statements which have been made in another place, that the Seed Potato Act has worked well, and has been largely made use of; but in a few instances its operation has been found defective, owing to the provisions in that Bill, with regard to those who have the misfortune to cultivate land in conacre, and those who are day labourers. Those agriculturists and those day labourers in the West of Ireland appear to be excepted from the benefit of the Act, and this Bill, therefore, proposes to repeal the limiting 5th section of that Act, and to enable in future the Poor Law Guardians of the different Unions in the West of Ireland to sell to the cultivators in conacre and day labourers the seed which they stand so much in need of.
  LORD DENMANthought that it would be extremely useful if some provision were made for the purchase of oats in addition to potatoes.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.