Lords Sitting of 18 July 1893

TOOK THE OATH.
Several Lords.
SAT FIRST.
The Duke of Marlborough, after the death of his father.
TRUST INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.] (No. 183.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN LORD MACNAGHTEN, in moving the Second Reading, said, the object of the Bill was to enable Trustees to invest trust moneys in their hands in Dock and Harbour Trusts. In principle it followed the legislation of recent years, allowing Trustees a much wider range of investment than formerly. It allowed them to invest trust moneys in railway and municipal securities, and, indeed, in almost every first-class security. The only question arising was whether the safeguards proposed in the Bill were sufficient; but that would be a question for Committee if their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Lord Macnaghten.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)asked the noble and learned Lord whether, assuming for the moment the investments were sufficiently secured, the 5th clause should not be altered so that a certificate should be given as to the conditions upon which the trust securities were to be based—whether something more than the signature of the Chairman or Secretary of the Trust should not be required? If these Trust investments were to be allowed some better security than that should be given.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, that was really more than the security now required in the case of railway investments, where no certificate of any kind was given.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): In the case of railway investments, the security is that the railway has paid on its Ordinary Stock for a certain number of years. Of course, with railway undertakings, where that is the case, there is that security. But Dock undertakings depend a great deal upon trade, and are, therefore, liable to fluctuations. One knows there are some ports which are not in a flourishing condition, and safeguards applicable to Dock undertakings that there should be a certain amount of shipping in the port would not, of course, apply to railway traffic. I think there is a great deal in the observation of the noble Lord that it is hardly right to depend entirely upon the certificate of the Chairman.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.] (No. 188.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD NORTON*LORD NORTON moved an Amendment which, he said, was absolutely necessary in order to avoid treating reformatory schools as places of punishment. The noble Earl (the Earl of Cranbrook), on the Second Reading, had said he considered reformatories were prisons; and, if that were so, the Bill might be left as it was. If reformatories were prisons, what was the use of the clause for keeping children out of the common gaols? His object was to avoid reformatories being treated, as in this Bill, as an addition to or in lieu of punishment, instead of as places of education after punishment. He could hardly conceive anybody proposing that children convicted of criminal offences should besides punishment be imprisoned for five years. To inflict five years' imprisonment on a child after punishment was to treat him far worse than an adult criminal was treated. The original and essential idea of a reformatory was exactly the reverse—that after being punished for his crime the youthful offender should be sent to a place where

  1795
  he could be better educated. He remembered when Sir William Harcourt once visited as Home Secretary, the reformatory he (Lord Norton) had established at Birmingham, which had always been regarded as one of the best in the Kingdom, he immediately asked, "Have none of these children decent homes to go to?" and on being told they had, he suggested that they should be sent home and educated in the national schools. To inflict five years' penal treatment on a child who had been punished for his offence was adverse to the spirit of our laws, which made allowance for infants under years of discretion. Besides, keeping up the idea of imprisonment during childhood defeated to a great extent the purpose of a reformatory. It stigmatised the child in his own consciousness and in the estimation of possible employers. These children were shut out of the Army and Navy, unless they were got in by evasion. His noble Friend (the Earl of Cranbrook) also said that the penal school did not taint a child's character, and that the taint was in the crime. Was no harm done to the child by keeping up that taint during his whole childhood, thereby depriving him of his self-respect, and preventing people employing him? Home Secretaries were generally inclined to keep reformatories as a sort of province of the Home Office, and were afraid of their getting under the Education Department, as they ought to be. The object of a reformatory was to obliterate the child's criminal associations, and to train him from neglect, and fit him for honest and respectable life. Certainly, much good had been done in that way, though often by an evasion of law; and there could be no doubt that injury was done, not only to the community, but to the children themselves, by keeping them under criminal treatment.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 1, line 14, to leave out from ("may") to ("sentencing") and to insert ("after, or without.")—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD LEIGHsaid, he hoped his noble Relative would not press his Amendment. A reformatory was, in fact, a penal school. He did not think the words proposed to be introduced into the clause would meet the noble Lord's views. The
  1796
  great object was to free the reformatories from anything of a penal character, and the Bill was to do away with the previous imprisonment of youthful offenders. Once in the reformatory they would be as little in a prison as they would be in any other school, though still under detention. As Lord Onslow had said on the previous occasion, Magistrates refused to send children to reformatories at all, because they would have to send them first to prison. The Bill was exactly on the lines of the Scotch Act, which became law this Session; and as the proposed alteration might wreck the Bill, he urged the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
  LORD VERNONsaid, Lord Norton's views on this subject would always receive the greatest consideration at the Home Office. Having expressed those views, and those views having been recorded, he was directed to ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment at present and bring it forward in Standing Committee, as the Government had an intention of obtaining, if possible, the leave of the promoters of the Scotch Act to repeal it, so that they might bring forward a measure to assimilate the Scotch and English Acts.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he was willing to accept the noble Lord's suggestion, and to bring forward the Amendment in. Standing Committee.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the announcement made by Lord Vernon excited some curiosity on his part, and he should like to know under what circumstances the noble Lord proposed to take the course suggested, and also whether it was possible for an Act to be repealed in the Session in which it had been passed?
  LORD VERNONsaid, he was not in a position to answer the noble Lord; but he was told at the Home Office that such a, course was possible.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that a precedent for the course suggested existed in a Game Act relating to Ireland, a provision in it having been repealed in the same Session in which it was passed.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD NORTONproposed a similar Amendment in this clause. He thought it was wrong that these children should be sentenced at all. When a child was convicted a second time he ought to be punished.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 2, line 22, to leave out from ("offender") to ("but") in line 24, and to insert ("if sentenced to imprisonment shall not be sent to a common gaol").—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD LEIGHsaid, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
  LORD VERNONsaid, the Government was opposed to this Amendment also, because they could not see any difference between a "prison" as suggested and a common gaol. It was suggested that these children should be imprisoned, but not sent to gaol; and he could only suppose that had reference to cells in the reformatories or other places. He hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not now press the Amendment.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he was willing to leave the matter in the noble Lord's hands, but begged him to bear in mind that the Mover of the Bill had consented to the alteration.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

MILLBANK PRISON SITE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATHasked Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that they have offered the balance of the site of Millbank Prison, some 10 acres in extent, not required for the Tate Gallery or barracks, to the London County Council as a site for artisans' dwellings, at the price of £2,500 per acre; whether this price is not considerably below market value; whether they are aware that the Local Authority of the district, the Westminster Vestry (St. Margaret and St. John), are strongly averse to further building, and are anxious, on a basis not
  1798
  exceeding £4,000 per acre, to negotiate for the purchase of the land as a public open space, offering to subscribe one-fourth of the purchase money themselves, and to take steps to find the balance; whether, under these circumstances, the. Government will withdraw their offer to the London County Council of the land for building purposes, and offer it at the same price as an open space; and, if not, whether they are prepared to subsidise to a similar extent (viz., £1,500 per acre) other public bodies, commercial companies, or private individuals erecting dwellings for the working classes? He said, that in 1877 an Act was passed taking the control of the prisons from the Local Authorities and placing them under the Central Government. The result had been that consolidation became possible, and many prisons were done away with. Among others was Millbank Penitentiary, on the north bank of the Thames, in the parish of St. John and St. Margaret, Westminster; The site was 23 acres in extent, 13 of which was to be devoted to the Tate Gallery Trustees and to the War Office for building barracks; and the remainder, he was informed, had been offered to the London County Council for the erection of artisans' dwellings at the rate of £2,500 an acre. He was as much in favour of building artisans' dwellings as anybody; but he would prove that this proposal was an economical mistake. There was no urgent need in the district for artisans' dwellings, while there was an urgent need for open spaces, and the Local Authorities had offered a larger sum than was asked by the Government in order that they might secure the land for that purpose. They were willing to contribute a fourth part of the cost, as long as it did not exceed £4,000 an acre—£1,500 an acre more than the Government were offering it for to the London County Council. He had been asked by the local Vestry to assist them in obtaining an open space in the district; and the Metropolitan Gardens Association also had expressed the same desire. In 1889 the London County Council offered to purchase the land at £2,000 an acre. In February, 1891, the valuers of the Government and County Council met, and fixed the market value of the land at £5,500 per acre. In March the County Council increased their offer to £3,000

  1799
  per acre; but it was refused by the Government, who adhered to the valuation. Then the Vestry made their offer of £4,000 an acre for the land for an open space. So matters remained until January, 1893, when the Treasury offered it to the London County Council for building artisans' dwellings at a price much below the estimated market value. He asserted that the Government were exceeding their powers in making this offer, as under Section 3 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, 48 and 49 Vict., they were bound to obtain "the fair market value" for the land. This offer was less than that made by the London County Council themselves in 1891 by £500 an acre, and by £1,500 less than the sum at which the local Vestry first in 1891, and afterwards in 1893, declared themselves willing to negotiate. As regarded the question of open spaces versus artisans' dwellings, there were already in the district artisans' dwellings containing some l,200 families, while in the neighbouring district of Chelsea there were dwellings of a similar kind. There were, on the other hand, only two open spaces available to the poor people of that district—one, for which they were indebted to the late Mr. W. H. Smith, close to the Houses of Parliament; the other, which was in Horseferry Lane, they owed to a noble Duke, a Member of that House. It had been said in the other House that the poor of this district could go to Battersea Park or St. James's Park; but the latter was ¾ of a mile, and the former 1¼ miles away, which was too far for little children or weakly women to walk. The population in the district of Millbank was more douse than in other parts of the Metropolis supposed to be overcrowded. The average density of the London population was 56, but in that district it was 182, to the acre. In St. Giles' it was 162, in Bethnal Green 158, and in Stepney (including Shadwell, Limehouse, and Ratcliff), it was 127 to the acre. The Millbank district, therefore, was much more crowded than those densely-populated districts. It had been said that the river adjoining was practically an open space; but it could hardly be called a recreation ground. This land should not be offered at a lower price than its proper market value, and the Government had made an
  1800
  economic blunder in so doing. The subject had been discussed in the other House upon three occasions during the present Session, and upon one of those the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted the responsibility for having offered the laud in question to the County Council at less than its proper value. There were several reasons why this site should not be given over for artisans' dwellings. Among those reasons were the question of population, the fact that artisans' dwellings might be obtained in any part of London, while open spaces could not, and the fact that the proposal of the Government would only benefit a small class, while a gift of public land ought only to be made for the benefit of all classes. Further than this, it was inadvisable to place artisans' dwellings containing a number of young girls and women in close proximity to barracks. He wished also to point out that the Government could not, under the Disused Burials Grounds Act, build on one small portion of the land, which had formerly been used as a burial ground. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be only a graceful act on the part of the Government to add to that piece, which could not be built upon in any case, and threw it open to the poor of the district. He therefore urged Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the offer of the land for a building site which they had made to the London County Council, especially as the County Council had been six months considering what it was going to do, and had not yet replied to the offer. He also asked the Government to state their willingness to negotiate for the sale of this land as an open space at £2,500 an acre, the sum at which they were now offering it for building purposes.
  THE EARL OF STAMFORDsaid, an open space in this district would be of special value to poor families. Batter-sea Park was at some distance, and an open space at hand was required where women carrying babies and poor persons with not much time to spare could obtain necessary air, exercise, and rest. The cost to the poor people of the district of going to Battersea Park would be prohibitive, especially in view of the raising of the fares upon the river steamers this summer. In St. James' Park there were only some 12 acres of grass avail-

  1801
  able at any one time for children or others to play upon. The Millbank site lay in one of the most squalid parts of the parish, and it would be the greatest boon to the old and very young to have this site as an open space. There were sanitary reasons for preserving the site as an open space. When the prison was occupied it was considered to be one of the most notoriously unhealthy prisons in England. Was that a proper place to select as a site for artisans' dwellings? Moreover, the prison was built on piles, and the cost of proper foundations alone for the proposed dwellings would be enormous. Some reliable estimate should be made as to the cost before the matter was finally settled. He was informed on credible authority there was plenty of room in the Lambeth Model Dwellings just across the river. He had been told that an idea had got about among the poorer classes in Lambeth that the London County Council intended to erect large buildings upon this site and to let the rooms at 1s. per week, the commercial rent being somewhere about 6s. 6d. Could their Lordships imagine anything more calculated to injuriously affect the moral tone of the poor than such a report as that getting about? Such a report absolutely paralysed all efforts to provide the poor with proper dwellings. Miss Octavia Hill, who had given so much wise and capable help to the poor, had entirely endorsed the views which had been expressed by his noble Friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have some responsibility in this matter, and I wish, therefore, to say a few words. I did not gather that the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion went so far back into the history of the case as he might have done. This purchase originated in the Royal Commission of 1884, presided over by Sir C. Dilke, which reported in favour of the land set free by the demolition of prisons being disposed of at cost price for the purpose of being used as a site for artisans' dwellings. When we came into Office in 1885 I introduced a Bill giving effect to that proposal. When the measure went down to the House of Commons it was strongly resisted by the Liberal Party, who were in a majority, and after con-
  1802
  siderable discussion it disappeared. I only say this in order not to divest myself of any responsibility that belongs to me, and also to say that my opinions are not altered since that time. I do not admire the proposal that the London County Council should take upon themselves the duty of building artisans' dwellings, and I very much doubt whether that would be a successful operation. The idea is not very good in principle, and I am afraid that if carried out it would not promise well to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. But I do not object to the proposal that the State should give assistance to such construction. In London the State is an enormous employer of labour; and, as far as I know, in every part of the country, both in towns and in rural districts, the usual practice is not for employers of large masses of labour to undertake the whole housing of their employés, but to help the work forward as best they can. For that reason, even if I were a very strict adherent of that political economy which has gone to Saturn and has not returned from there, I should not desire to contest the proposal that the State should, in a matter of this kind, favour the erection of working-men's dwellings in a place where it is so large an employer of labour as it is in London; and on that account I am glad the idea has been resuscitated. Whether this land would be better employed as an open space is a question upon which, of course, men will form different opinions. I can quite understand that the noble Lord, Miss Octavia Hill, and other persons who have shown such a praiseworthy and indomitable energy in preserving and increasing open spaces in the Metropolis, should be enthusiastic on the subject, and that they should prefer their own favourite form of philanthropy; but I must confess that it seems to me more important that men should have wholesome and decent dwellings than that they should have open spaces to take a walk in. I think it is more a necessity of life. I do not the least deny that there is room for a difference of opinion upon the subject, but in view of the open spaces which exist, and in view of the great necessity which, according to my information, there is in the Metropolis for working men's dwellings, I confess I should lean

  1803
  to that mode of disposing of the bounty of the State. But, however, I have not risen for the purpose of discussing that. I merely wish to point out the origin and history of this proposal, and to express a hope that some way may be found of applying this site which has fallen to the State in an accidental manner for an object which, I think, all sound and wise philanthropists will always continue to have at heart.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, two questions arose in reference to the value of this land, and what should be done with it. It was public property, and belonged to the Government. His noble Friend strongly advocated that it should be devoted to recreative purposes, and should not be built over; and, looking at all the circumstances of the district and existing open spaces, he must support that view. In spite of what had been said with reference to the State housing its workmen, it had a duty to the taxpayers, and he had always asserted that the ratepayers of the Metropolis had nothing to do with providing artisans' dwellings. All that the Public Authorities should do in the matter was to take care that rookeries and insanitary dwellings should not be allowed to be occupied, and then the owners of such properties would build proper houses. The Government were bound to get the best price they could for the land; and it was a short-sighted policy in the long run that Public Bodies should be asked to spend public money on what had previously been sufficiently done by private enterprise. No individual persons could enter into competition with the London County Council or with Vestries, who had power to tax the unhappy ratepayers up to their eyes for any social or other object.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsaid, he had asked the noble Earl (the Earl of Meath) to postpone his question; but though the noble Eard had said that would be inconvenient to him, he was willing that the answer of Her Majesty's Government should be given on a future day. That was a somewhat unusual course; but he hoped the House would agree to it on the present occasion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a very unusual proceeding. May I ask whether the noble Lord will give
  1804
  notice of the intended answer of the Government?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): The noble Earl will repeat the question on another day. He was invited to put it off, but he decided not to do so, though my noble Friend was not prepared to answer that question. The noble Earl has, therefore, had the opportunity of making his speech tonight.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT EASTBOURNE.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYcalled attention to the action of the Education Department in regard to a final notice respecting fresh school accommodation at Eastbourne; and moved for—
  "A Return of all cases in which final notices have been issued to localities since 1st September, 1892, to supply deficiencies in school accommodation, stating the time which was given in each case for the meeting of such deficiency, in default of which a School Board would be set up by the Education Department."
  He said, he had no personal connection with Eastbourne, and he brought forward the subject because there was a possibility of a great wrong being done in this enterprising and rising locality, which had shown great zeal in the cause of education. He was afraid, from the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government, that they were inclined to act hastily and harshly towards those who were trying, in good earnest and truth, to supply the deficient school accommodation in that place. He was sorry the Lord President had not more time to spare from the great affairs of India to give to these educational matters, for he would, no doubt, act up to the spirit of Mr. Forster's Bill, and in harmony with all the statements of the Government of that day, of which he was a Member. What was the law on the subject? The law required that in ordinary cases of deficient school accommodation the Department, having satisfied itself of the extent of the deficiency, should order the locality within a certain period to make it up; and if, at the end of the period named in the final notice, that were not done, or were not

  1805
  in course of being provided with due despatch, the Department would then cause a School Board to be set up. The Town Council or the ratepayers had at any time the right to demand a School Board; and the fact that no such demand had been made showed that a School Board -was not desired by the people of a locality. Six months was the period usually given for the supply of new school accommodation; and if, at the end of that period, due preparations for the supply had been made the order for a School Board was not issued. At Eastbourne, early last year, the Town Council informed the managers of the voluntary schools that, owing to the rapid increase of the population, about 800 extra school places were required. The managers at once initiated a provisional scheme for 1,000 places; great doubts, however, were raised as to the actual extent of the deficiency, some saying the deficiency was less, and some greater: the ordinary rule of l-6th of the population not applying to a watering-place, and it being very difficult to ascertain what was the permanent population. In April, 1892, Her Majesty's Inspector thought that 1,200 additional places were needed. This uncertainty, of course, much hampered the managers in their efforts; but it appeared that the autumn months were busily spent holding meetings, getting together large funds, and organising a Schools Extension Committee. In January, 1893, the Department issued a formal notice that 1,450 places were wanted. That, of course, was a great shock to the managers of the existing schools; but they were not afraid of it, and they at once, in January, demanded a public inquiry in order to make out whether this increased demand was supported by the facts of the case on the spot. After this a delay occurred until April 20, when the inquiry began; again, another delay occurred after the inquiry was closed, and for seven weeks the managers had to wait for the result of the inquiry. He was not blaming the Department for that delay, for it might have been necessary; but the point he wished to press was that this delay from January to June in knowing what school places would really be required, whether 800, 1,250, or 1,450, was undoubtedly a great hindrance to the volunteers in proceeding
  1806
  with their scheme, getting public subscriptions, and obtaining sites. At last, on June 8, notice was given that 1,311 additional seats were required, instead of 1,450 previously demanded, thus showing that the Department had demanded 139 seats more than, after full inquiry, could be proved needed. This long period of delay had, of course, largely prevented the Schools Extension Committee from getting on with the work, owing to the uncertainty of the requirements to be met; what, therefore, was everyone's astonishment when, on June 22, a final notice was issued by the Department, giving, instead of the usual six months, only one month within which was to be made the provision of the 1,311 extra seats. This was a case of great local hardship, and if it was a specimen of what was going on in other parts of the country the attention of Parliament ought to be directed to the question. While waiting for the decision of the Department, the voluntary school managers at Eastbourne had collected nearly £6,000 for the provision of extra school accommodation, and that sum would have been sufficient for about 1,000 extra seats. Since that notice had been issued, the Schools Inquiry Committee had informed the Department that they had plans ready, provisionally approved by the Department, for three schools for about 492 each—more than sufficient; that two sites were given; that they expected to secure the third; that they wished leave given at once to begin building; that their treasurer certified that they had nearly £7,000 in hand out of the £8,000 required by the June decision, and that more money was coming in. He thought that the result of voluntary effort at Eastbourne had been wonderful, and he was certain that Mr. Forster would have been the first man to welcome such splendid zeal. Why should not the Department say—"Eastbourne is prepared to meet the deficiency, and we will wait a reasonable time, as has been the ordinary practice in such cases?" Then, if the deficiency was not met, they could order a School Board at any time. This was a case of genuine hardship, and if the noble Earl opposite had had time to consider and weigh the matter he would never have set such an unfortunate precedent; and surely he would not allow so great an in-

  1807
  justice to be done to the Eastbourne ratepayer, but would see that they had done their duty so far and were proceeding to supply the deficiency with due despatch. In taking that view he would be following the best precedents get by the various Governments of both sides by whom the Education Department had been administered. He moved for the Return mentioned in his notice.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "A Return of all cases in which final notices have been issued to localities since 1st September, 1892, to supply deficiencies in accommodation, stating the time which was given in each case for the meeting of such deficiency, in default of which a School Board would be set up by the Education Department/'—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I rather demur to the statement that there has been some great hardship inflicted in this case. Had that been so, I should greatly regret it. This question has been under consideration for a very long time, and, in the first instance, those who are responsible for the school accommodation at Eastbourne made a most extraordinary miscalculation. The Department came to the conclusion that a larger number of seats than 1,000 was necessary, and they ordered accommodation for 1,450. Then a public inquiry was demanded, and the result of the public inquiry which was held was that accommodation to the extent of 1,311 seats was found to be necessary. The noble Earl must remember that the notice given is not a notice to supply the required accommodation within one month. That would obviously be preposterous, and all that will have to be shown is that the accommodation is in the course of being supplied. That means that a bonâ fide effort which is likely to result in supplying the required school accommodation is being made. Giving a rather shorter period has the salutary effect of quickening their proceedings, and I am happy to say that the latest information we have received is that a considerable sum has been raised. I am told that it is as much now as £7,000, and that sites have been procured. That is a satisfactory result from the point of view of all parties. In the strictest interpretation of the Act of Parliament the Education Department has no power to order a School Board if
  1808
  it is shown that the accommodation is in the course of being supplied. I think the Department has very fairly exercised its own discretion as to the time it would allow, and in not giving the entire six months' notice which would be necessary supposing there had been no opportunity for preparation at all. The real object, of course, is to secure proper accommodation for the children, giving, at the same time, a perfectly fair opportunity for those who prefer voluntary schools of providing that accommodation before the final step is taken of authorising a School Board. It gives me great satisfaction to find that the ultimate result of this matter is likely to be satisfactory to all parties concerned. I have not the slightest objection to give the noble Earl the information for which he asks, but I should like to consult him as to the form; and I would, therefore, request him to postpone the Motion, in order that I may suggest to him words which would empower us to give rather fuller information, and then, of course, the Motion will be unopposed.
  LORD SANDFORDsaid, the Education Department had laid down the rule—which was always acted upon while he was there—that six months was to be the term allowed. It might be shorter in one or two cases where the Inspector reported that the volunteers had done, and would do, nothing, and in those instances three or four months had been given; but in no case that he had ever heard of where so much had been done by the volunteers in providing sites, plans, and tenders had so short a time been given. In the circumstances, it would be a great stretch of the power of the Department to order the creation of a School Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish merely to draw a moral from the discussion upon this matter, which has terminated happily, I understand—that is, the danger of entrusting these enormous powers to a Public Department. Most despotic powers have been entrusted to the Education Department, and as long as they are in the hands of men like Mr. Forster or my noble Friend the Earl of Harrowby the effect of them is not felt. If they were really in the hands of the noble Earl opposite, and if he would only treat Church people as he treats Hindoos and

  1809
  Mussulmen, there would be no discontent at the present moment. The noble Earl knows very well that if he treated Mussulmen as he is now treating Church people there would be bloodshed in India before very long. But the powers of the Department have fallen into the hands of a Vice President with a strong antipathy to voluntary schools, and he is causing that antipathy to be felt in every part of the country. I only wish to enter my word of warning against the Vice President's policy. The struggle upon which the Government has entered is a struggle on a religious question, and there is no subject on which it is so unwise to trust to a temporary majority as on a religious controversy. Whether it is right or whether it is wrong, the development which the Cowper-Temple Clause has taken has profoundly alarmed Church people all over the country. A large portion of the members of the Church of England, as well as other Bodies, regarded the religious teaching given in Board schools with great antipathy and terror. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. It is not my business to discuss religious questions or press my own views; but I earnestly wish the Government will consider that there is a really deep—a most intractable and unmanageable—objection to the form which, in the course of time, religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause has taken. The Government are running straight on a very formidable religious controversy which will have the effect of seriously weakening and retarding educational questions all over the country. I am sure they are paralysing the educational machinery, and are entering upon a most dangerous course, simply because they will not believe that there are any considerable number of people in this country who care about the teaching of definite religious doctrine. These people are very numerous. They are very earnest, and they will not readily give in. If the Government insist on meting out to them a measure which they mete out to no other Religious Bodies of any kind at home or abroad—if they choose to disregard and disbelieve in their religious convictions, and ride over them as if they did not exist—I do not think the Church people will suffer in the long run. I believe they will be able to assert their own position and defend themselves.
  1810
  But what will suffer, and suffer fatally, is the educational progress of the country.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, he had nothing to say on the religious question to which the noble Marquess had alluded, because he thought that was outside the subject to which their Lordships' attention had been called; but he would like to bring one or two facts before the House with reference to the statement that the Department had acted in a despotic manner. There were 4,914children of school age in Eastbourne, and there was a deficiency in the school accommodation of 1,300 places. It was, therefore, the duty of the Department, not to consider whether that deficiency should be supplied by denominational schools or by Board schools, but to see that it was supplied. Nine months elapsed between the time when a letter to that effect was sent by the Department to the school managers and the first notice which was given of the action of the Department. That was a long time to wait, and there was nothing very arbitrary or abrupt in that notice. Five months more were allowed to elapse after that notice was given before further action was taken—until the final notice of January, and then he admitted that the people connected with the voluntary schools at Eastbourne showed great activity; but it was only that morning that a letter arrived informing the Department that sites had been secured and subscriptions obtained to supply the necessary places. The noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) had spoken of the delay by the Department; but there had been no time to answer the letter of that morning. It was gratifying that at last the pressure that had been put upon the town had been successful, and that Eastbourne would no longer rank as a town in which a large number of children, amounting to one-fourth of the whole, had no means of obtaining school accommodation.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he was obliged for what the Lord President had said about the Return, as to the length of time given in final notices by the present Government, the wording of which he hoped to be able to arrange with the noble Earl; and he would therefore postpone his Motion to a later day. He understood from the Lord President's reply that when Saturday, the

  1811
  fatal day of the closing of the month of the final notice, arrived, that Eastbourne would receive a soothing letter from the Department, praising them for their exertions in providing the accommodation required, and saying that as they were proceeding with due despatch, a School Board would not be ordered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Department has not, of course, had time to consider the letter; but, as far as I gather, that will be the result.
  Motion postponed.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 184.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 204.)
TRUSTEES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.] (No. 205.)
Reported from the Select Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended.
COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.] (No. 206.)
Reported from the Select Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended.
CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la and to be printed. (No. 207.)
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed. (No. 208.)
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 209.)
LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed. (No. 210.)
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 109.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 176.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 192.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.