Lords Sitting of 4 September 1893

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
SAT FIRST.
The Lord Elphinstone, after the death, of his father.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS, AND WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  *THE BISHOP OF CHESTERmoved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the following portions of the Cardiganshire Intermediate and Technical Education Scheme: —Page 10 (Clause 48), lines 29 to 37 inclusive; pages 16 and 17, the whole of Part VII., namely, the whole of page 16 and also page 17, down to the end of line 27."
  He said that, though the matter to which he was calling their Lordships' attention was in one sense trifling, it raised an important question. The scheme affected only a sparsely-populated district in Cardiganshire, containing not more than 8,000 inhabitants, and it involved very little in money or even status; but it involved principles of justice, religious liberty, and respect for the rights of conscience. The scheme provided no county school for the Lampeter district. There was already a good school there, largely attended by the sons of Nonconformist parents, but it was connected with St. David's College, and the Education Committee had determined that boys from the Lampeter district who won County Scholarships should not be allowed to go to the school connected with St. David's College, but must go either to Aberystwith, Aberayeon, or Cardigan. In the next county, Carmarthenshire, there was also a flourishing school—Llandovery—and the authorities had wisely determined that it might be attended by boys winning County Scholarships. Referring briefly to the growth of this school, after the Report of Lord Aberdare's Commission was issued, the authorities of St. David's College had to consider what their attitude would be as affecting both
  1842
  primary and intermediate education in Wales, and the first plan upon which they corresponded with Lord Abordare was to transplant the College to the little City of Llandaff, which had Cardiff at its doors, the object being to have the two Colleges close together in order to gain the advantages afforded by proximity. Lord Abordare, and others who were consulted, considered the proposal favourably. Though they were all in sympathy with the proposal, it had to be abandoned, owing to insuperable practical obstacles. That showed what the attitude of Lampeter had been towards the University. An endeavour was then made to develop St. David's College at Lampeter, and among other things a College School was founded with the aid of friends and members. The Lampeter school adopted from the first a remarkable Conscience Clause, proposed by Lord Aberdare's Commission, which required that every parent should choose for his son whether ho should or should not have religious instruction, thus placing the brunt of responsibility on the parents. In 1885 the school contained boys whose parents belonged to the six principal Nonconformist denominations, and to-day all but Roman Catholics wore represented. There could be no doubt about the efficiency of the school, and yet the scheme deliberately deprived the ratepayers from taking advantage of this school close to their doors. The cost of education was greatly increased when a parent had to send his boy to a distant school as a boarder. In Carmarthenshire quite a different plan had been adopted, and he failed to see any reason which applied there specially as against Cardiganshire. It might be said to be now too late, and that if this clause wore struck out of the scheme the House would be obstructing the course of intermediate education in Wales; but the real obstructionists were surely they who had introduced a narrow-minded and unjust restriction into this scheme. The Lampeter County Council, the Lampeter School Board, and the Lampeter Board of Guardians had each petitioned against the scheme as "unjust and injurious"; and if their protest was rather late, it was because they thought that more equitable terms were to be offered to the neighbourhood by the Charity Commissioners or the Education

  1843
  Department. The Charity Commissioners did, in fact, propose an alternative scheme, which would permit parents to send their children to Lampeter School if it were brought within the Endowed Schools Act; but that scheme could not be accepted by the College Authorities until they had seen it, for the school was in the grounds of St. David's College and was maintained largely by the College funds. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that the College should know what the scheme was going to be before they could accept it. It was suggested by the Vice President that the difficulty might be met by a supplemental scheme; but it was better to prevent than to cure injustice, and Parliament ought not to allow a scheme which committed flagrant and acknowledged injustice to go out with its imprimatur. The success of this Motion need not entail any delay, for that part of the scheme dealing with the Scholarships would be alone stayed, and the rest could go forth. He thought at first that certain words in Clause 84 obviated the injustice by permitting the School Managers upon the request of the parent of the holder of the Scholarship to choose the school; but he now found that that interpretation of the clause was not correct, and that it rather bore upon the interchange of boundaries as between the county schools of Carmarthen, Cardigan, and Pembroke.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the following portions of the Cardiganshire Intermediate and Technical Education Scheme:—Page 10 (Clause 48), lines 2!) to H7 inclusive; pages 1(! and 17, the whole of Part VII., namely, the whole of page 16 and also page 17, down to the end of line 27." —(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I am not at all able to admit that there has been flagrant injustice done here, in the very strong words used by my right rev. Friend. I do not think there has been any injustice done at all. This is a matter of arrangement, and I will explain to your Lordships exactly what has occurred. As the right rev. Prelate has observed, the simple case is that there is a particular district in Cardiganshire where there is no county school; and,
  1844
  therefore, the Scholarships to be established in that district will have to be held elsewhere—that is, in accordance with the precedent in the Carmarthenshire case, whore there is a similar scheme. It is provided for the scheme that, unless otherwise ordered by School Managers on the special request of parents, Scholarships shall be tenable at any county school. I do not read those words in the narrow sense which the right rev. Prelate has attached to them. I look upon them as giving a plain discretion; so that, if there were parents who desired that their children should go into a school in this district not being a county school, that discretion may be exercised by the Managers. This provision seems to meet, as it was intended to meet, the difficulty raised by the right rev. Prelate. As to the alleged hardship that Llandovery School in the neighbourhood should be recognised whilst Lampeter School was not, the former is a large endowed school in which the Conscience Clause is adopted, and Lampeter is not endowed under the Act of Parliament. The Joint Committee objected to placing in the position of a county school a school over which the County Authority will have no jurisdiction. Upon the whole, no injustice is done. It is following established precedents; and it will be possible that Lampeter School shall hereafter be adopted as a county school. I simply look upon this as a case where an arrangement has been fairly made; and if hereafter it is thought that Lampeter School, having come within the Endowed Schools Act, may reasonably be recognised as an endowed school, that may easily be done. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not adopt the Motion.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the scheme suggested by the Charity Commissioners was considered by the Department?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: And whether that scheme was upon the basis that if any school hereafter became an endowed school under the Charity Commissioners it should be open as a school for holding Scholarships?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes. Perhaps I might state exactly what has been done. In the original scheme, as proposed hero, was a provision which would have admitted any endowed school, but; in the scheme as now framed there is no such provision. That was considered by the Charity Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: That is what I mean. As a matter of fact, the Education Department have overruled the Charity Commissioners that there should be a wider scope given in the education of children. The Department was desirous that the children should be put on an equality. The question is not so much between the two schools as it is a question for the children and parents, who are cut off from the use of a good local school existing in their midst. It was proposed by the Charity Commissioners, and rejected by the Education Department, that in such circumstances parents should be able to send their children to the local school, and should not be obliged to send them to a distance to obtain their education. The general idea is that in all parts of the country scholars who gain prizes and Scholarships shall be educated in the district to which they belong. Under the scheme the scholars of the Lampeter district would have to be sent to a county school away from the district. This is not compatible with a system the main object of which is to bring a cheap education to every man's door. I cannot understand why the scheme has been drawn so narrowly in regard to places where county schools are not in existence. What has been done is to make it an absolutely exclusive system against the wish of the Charity Commissioners, who wished it to be otherwise, and the mistake can be remedied by suspending the clause until Lampeter comes under the Endowed Schools Commission.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have only one observation to make. I do not understand whether the right rev. Prelate wishes to omit the whole of Part VII. I am not saying that I agree to the omission of Clause 84; but why he wishes to suspend it with regard to Scholarships over the whole country I do not understand. I thought the object
  1846
  he had in view would have been entirely satisfied by moving as to Section 84.
  *THE BISHOP OF CHESTERsaid, he had no wish to be unreasonable, but it seemed desirable that the whole question of Scholarships should be reconsidered, and there would be really no delay. He was glad to hear the Lord President's interpretation of Clause 84, but he had heard quite another interpretation of it, and must still be rather sceptical. As to Llandovery School, its Head Master was required to be in Holy Orders; whereas at Lampeter he was not. With regard to any jealousy as to Llandovery School, it was really not a question between the schools at all, but for the parents, and the strong language to which the noble Lord referred was simply a ([notation from the protest of the Local Authorities concerned. He asked their Lordships to adopt the Motion in order to secure the reconsideration of what seemed at the best somewhat ambiguous treatment of the Scholarships and Exhibitions in Cardiganshire.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 33; Not-Contents 23.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS, 1869 TO 1889, AND WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDKESS.
    *THE BISHOP OF CHESTER,on behalf of the Bishop of St. Asaph, moved—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the following portion of the Merionethshire Intermediate and Technical Education Scheme: —Clause 91 (b) from the word ("boarding-house") to the end; Clause 91 (c).
    He said, the Merioneth Scheme contained a very important element. The portion of thy scheme to which he objected proposed to introduce the undenominational system of religious teaching and worship into boarding-houses; and this, in his would constitute a very serious precedent in the case of like institutions

    1847
    in England. He believed the intention of the authors of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act was to leave boarders attending intermediate schools in Wales under Clause 16 of the Endowed Schools Act, and, therefore, on the same footing as boarders in England. Several discussions had taken place on the subject, and particularly in Committee of the House of Commons on the 23rd July, 1889, when attempts were made by Mr. Stuart Rendel, Mr. Ellis, and others to get the word "day" before "scholars" left out in the Conscience Clause; but Sir W. Hart Dyke declined to accept the alteration. But it appeared that in this scheme the Charity Commissioners had made a kind of flank movement. In Clause 91, Sub-sections (b) and (c), they had introduced an entirely novel interpretation; and he would ask whether the Welsh Intermediate Education Act was not intended to leave the position of boarders as regarded religious instruction and family worship on the same footing as boarders in England? He would also ask whether the interpretation of the clause by the Charity Commissioners was a legitimate one? The Vice President of the Council had stated in the House of Commons that he was not responsible for that interpretation, and it was, undoubtedly, a very serious departure and most radical change. Under Section 91, and under the interpretation by the Charity Commissioners of Clause 16 of the Endowed School Act, a boarding-house master or the master of a hostel might himself be a Churchman, all the hoarders might be the sons of parents who were also Churchmen, and yet, say on Easter or Trinity Sunday, the use of the Collects for the day would be out of order. It was further provided that while the teaching in general should be undenominational, yet, with the permission of the County Governing Authorities, instruction might be separately given in matters of a denominational kind. He objected that to put this matter under the direction of County Governing Bodies was to make a serious departure from the Endowed Schools Act. He contended that even if the interpretation placed upon Clause 16 was a legitimate one, such a change ought not to be introduced by a side wind. If it was intended to deal with the work of religious instruction and family
    1848
    workship in boarding-housing and hostels on new lines, it ought to be done in the clearest and most direct way, so that everyone should understand what a change was coming over our educational system. On these grounds he asked their Loprdships to adopt the Motion.
    Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent to the following portion of the Merionethshire Intermediate and Technical Education Scheme:—Clause 91 (b)from the word ("boarding-house") to the end; Clause 91 (c):"—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, with regard to what I understand to be the right rev. Prelate's interpretation of the effect of the 16th clause of the Endowed Schools Act of many years ago and of the clause which the Charity Commissioners have inserted in this scheme, I do not think he precisely explained the point. I do not think the Act provides for any such special restrictions as those referred to; but that the provisions are only of a general kind, enabling parents to withdraw their children in case the religious instruction is not such as they approve. I can tell the right rev. Prelate unreservedly that the Charity Commissioners, who are charged with the preparation of these schemes, are distinctly of opinion that what they have done in the present ease is in no sense ultra vires. I am not now speaking of the merits, but that Subsection (b) is distinctly within their powers. With regard to the policy of the sub-section to which objection has been taken, I think that, looking to all the circumstances of Wales, and the state of opinion there, it is highly undesirable to allow denominational teaching in boarding-houses or hostels connected with intermediate education in Wales. In a matter of this kind you must take account of the, general feeling which exists. Speaking of Sub-section (c), the Joint Committee proposed that the teaching of denominationalism should be absolutely forbidden in those houses. That was the mode in which the proposal came before the Department; but the Department thought, looking to all the circumstances of the ease, it would be much more likely to work smoothly if the Governing Body were permitted to act subject to any regulations which might be made on the

    1849
    subject. Those words were inserted at the suggestion of the Education Department. The whole matter is one which is, no doubt, difficult of adjustment. There is a great deal of feeling upon all these subjects, and it is exceedingly hard to devise such a system as will meet the wishes of all who send their children to those boarding-houses. But there is really no hardship here, because in Subsection (a) it is provided that the boarders shall be allowed to attend such places of worship as their parents may desire, and should have reasonable facilities for such religious instruction as their parents shall choose for them. That seems to me to provide for the case of parents who desire that instruction of an undenominational kind shall be given. Those who attach enormous importance to their children being taught a dogmatic theology, and who have a strong objection to any religious instruction which is not of that character, can have it provided elsewhere than in the hostel itself; but it may be provided in the hostel itself if the Governing Body will permit it. On the whole, I suggest that the arrangement is fair and reasonable, and does not act against the conscientious feelings of anyone. Looking at the whole circumstances of the case, and at what I am afraid are the animosities which prevail in that part of the United Kingdom, and considering how desirable it is that you should not in any way force denominational education upon these institutions, I think it is reasonable and fair that the scheme should remain in the form in which it has now been framed.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my objection to the course which the Government are taking is that they are making a very large and vital change in a small clause in a small scheme—a change which, when its scope and effect are known, will cause the bitterest feelings on the part of a considerable number of Christians in this country. Whether the Government are right or wrong, if Parliament determines that undenominational education is to prevail, and succeeds in defining what education is, I do not raise any further objection on that point. But I do demur most strongly to a change of this great extent and area and effect, which is so likely to embitter the feelings of religious educationists in this country,
    1850
    being introduced in a small scheme for a Welsh county. Now, the point is this. In all the battles we have had here upon the Endowed Schools Act and the Intermediate Education Act we have always drawn a very strong line between day scholars and those who reside in the family, and are subject to teaching, as it were, night and day. Certain arrangements were made for day scholars; but in the Act of 1869, and again in the Act of 1889, it was carefully stated that the exclusion of denominational education should apply to day scholars. When that is done in an Act of Parliament it means that others shall not be subjected to the exclusion. If the noble Lord is right in saying—
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It is the view of the Charity Commissioners. I am not giving my view of it.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is quite wise to dissociate himself from it; but whether that is right or wrong, undoubtedly the meaning of the clause is that others which are not denominational shall not be subject to that enactment. But now, when the day provisions have been in force for 20 years, by a side wind the Charity Commissioners are trying to thrust in the application of the principle in the much wider case of those who are brought up in the family. Your Lordships will see at once what the difference is. Undenominational education means education in religion, leaving out anything to which any person can object. Giving undenominational education to children means teaching without any dogmatic statement which any body of religious persons can object to. It means without teaching the divinity of Our Lord. That is the real point on which, in the long run, all these regulations will turn, whatever the local circumstances in particular places may be. Now we say that to do that is really to put out of gear religious teaching altogether; that religious teaching is not possible in that hypothetical way. Just consider what is the position created by Sub-section (c). In the general schoolroom the teacher has to say that he does not know whether the divinity of Our Lord is to be maintained or not; but in a neighbouring schoolroom, if a bit of paper is produced from the pocket of the scholar, the

    1851
    teacher will be required to teach the very doctrine which was forbidden in the other case—he will proceed to give his reasons for believing in the divinity of our Lord. In what state of mind do you imagine a boy will be when he has been subjected to that extraordinary proceeding? You cannot play fast-and-loose with the deepest religious convictions of the human mind in this way, and you had better utterly abandon the idea of any attempt at religious education, if your conditions of religious education are to leave out the fundamental doctrines upon which all religious feelings and all religious motives must ultimately turn. The notion that there is a religion expunging that upon which men differ, and leaving nothing but that upon which all men can agree, is the wildest chimera that ever entered the brain of a politician. A politician cannot make these things happen as he desires. The religious conviction is much too strong for him. It will have its way; and all you will do by this attempt to force an impossible neutrality upon the mind you are attempting to teach the most important things will be undoubtedly to propagate infidelity in the first place, and, in the next, to promote a bitter, angry religious reaction, from which the education you are trying to press forward will be the first to suffer. My Lords, I entreat you, if you mean to undertake this anti-crusade, if you desire to exterminate all religious belief from religious education, do it in the open; do it by a bold general measure; do it by something we can discuss here in public, and to which we can call the attention of the country; but do not attempt to do it, by a side wind, by this wretched introduction of insidious words into a scheme of the Charity Commissioners.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, with regard to what the noble Marquess has said, I cannot assent to the suggestion that a scheme of this sort, if carried into effect, will be likely to destroy religious belief and promote infidelity. I believe that to be an absolute delusion, and that it springs to some extent from a want of acquaintance with what is called undenominational religious teaching, which is, nevertheless, as truly religious, and which is as truly calculated to influence the mind and
    1852
    heart of man as what is commonly called dogmatic, or religious, or Church teaching. There are boarding and other schools carried on upon undenominational principles, from which the inmates go to confirmation as from denominational institutions. I venture to say, and I speak from knowledge of some of these institutions, that the children who issue from them go into the world as imbued with religious teaching and as far removed from infidelity as from any other schools in the Kingdom. I demur to the view that what is called undenominational teaching is necessarily either antagonistic to religious teaching or to religious feeling. In a question of this sort we have to deal with the matter practically, and I do not know exactly what it is at this moment that the noble Marquess desires. Does he desire that every one of these hostels should become a place of denominational teaching for some Religious Body or another; that there shall be no common Christian worship among those who go there unless they are willing to adopt the worship of some denomination to which, perhaps, they do not belong? We are dealing with a mixed population in Wales, among whom, I believe, this matter will be largely freed from difficulty. I do not believe there would be the slightest difficulty in the young people in Wales taking a common part in family worship without exciting any susceptibilities. The truth is, these difficulties are more imaginary than real. They can be conjured up into something pretentious; but I do not believe that in practice the difficulty arises. If this were a proposal to promote undenominational teaching where it was not desired, I could understand objections being raised to it; but here no parent is debarred from obtaining religious teaching for his child. Is not that a fair compromise in the matter? Such religious teaching is given generally in the school-house as may be made use of by those belonging to different denominations, and as would not be offensive to these different denominations; but as regards the particular religious teaching which any parent desires for his child, that is practically secured by this proposal. The child may attend a place of religious teaching, and may have such facilities for all religious teaching as the parent desires. I do not say the scheme is a

    1853
    perfect one. It would be impossible, perhaps, to have a perfect scheme for this purpose; but, in dealing with a matter of this sort, I submit to your Lordships that this scheme is not creating any such dangerous precedent, as the noble Marquess suggests, or likely to lead to the terrible irreligion which he appears to anticipate.
    THE BISHOP OF ELYasked whether the county schools would only have one hostel in each case? Parents might wish to send their children to a hostel which had a different religious teaching. They might be hostels for Roman Catholics, hostels for Wesleyans, or hostels for Baptists, and if the head of the hostel was to announce that he proposed to teach the children therein in accordance with the wishes of the parents, and if the parents chose to send all their children to one hostel, why was a clause put into the Bill to limit that hostel in using the formularies of a particular denomination for family worship? It was possible for the head of a hostel to say he would have undenominational education, and why should not the head of another have other teaching? A boarding-house was a place where the children residing there spent a large part of the year, where they obtained the main part of their religious teaching, and where their religious feeling was developed day by day. He ventured to hope their Lordships would support the Motion.
    On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not Contents 23.
    Resolved in the affirmative.
    Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS (1883 AND 1887) AMENDMENT BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(The Lord Playfair.)
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish merely to make an appeal to the noble Lord. It appears
    1854
    we are to have an agreeable November and December in this admirable climate, and I think it would be agreeable to your Lordships if he would join in providing us with some little work for the period. I do not think the noble Lord has taken advantage of us, or done anything of which we have a right to complain; but, as a matter of fact, this Bill did slip through without any of us knowing what had been done. This is due to the extraordinary extent to which this House requires that system of reference as to which we so often have had reason to complain. I defy any lay person upon a mere reading of the Bill to find out what it means; but with all the advantage of having the Statute Book by one and tracing from point to point what it refers to it is very difficult to find out what the object of it is. It has come as a surprise not only upon us, but upon the persons whom it directly affects, who are principally fisher-men engaged in sailing vessels on our Eastern Coast. As I under-stand the case, there is already an Act which subjects those who work steamers in the fishing industry on the East Coast to an examination under the Board of Trade, and this is a measure proposing to extend the liability to examination from steamers to sailing vessels. Now, to the principle of the measure, I have no objection at all. I am not quite such a believer in examinations, perhaps, as the noble Lord; but it is quite reasonable, I think, that persons should be subjected to examination who have the charge of other people's lives in their hands. What I demur to is that this demand should be made upon men who have already entered upon their career, have spent a considerable part of their lives in this work, and who you may be quite certain, whatever happened, could not pass an examination. It means to them the cutting off of their livelihood, a condemnation to poverty. I do not think there is any case of inconvenience or danger made out which justifies you in enforcing so hard a measure upon an industrious population, and I am not in the least surprised at the terror with which these fishermen have heard of the fate in store for them. I would ask your Lord-ships, with all the advantages of your education, if it, was suddenly said that you should not enjoy your incomes unless

    1855
    you passed in a competitive examination, how many of you would look at the prospect with equanimity? That is the measure which you are preparing for the unfortunate fishermen in sailing vessels on the East Coast. No doubt the noble Lord will toll me that the Board will not be allowed to impose this examination unless it is absolutely necessary. I am sure that will not be considered a satisfactory answer by the population whom it concerns. I believe the Board is guided by equity and judgment, and I do not, in the least, fear that any ill-use would be made of its powers by the present Board; but nobody can foresee into whose hands its powers will fall, and I simply desire to take care, as far as the Department is concerned, that no evil use will be made of those powers when given. I can quite understand that these people upon whom you are inflicting this measure would demur to it very much. I might have proposed a number of Amendments which would have expressed my views; but they are difficult to deal with in a full House, and it seems to me more reasonable, if the noble Lord will agree, to send it back to the Committee, and there to discuss the provisions one by one in detail, and see whether some better arrangement cannot be arrived at by the Board of Trade with reference to these people, who are, I am sure your Lordships will think, worthy of every consideration.
    Motion (by leave of the House) with-drawn.
    Moved, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
    *LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, this was not a Government Bill, but a private measure originally brought in in 1892 by Mr. Heneage, the Member for Grimsby. It was modified by the Board of Trade during that year, and Mr. Heneage approved of the modifications, and introduced it again. It was, therefore, before the fishing population, if they had chosen to take any interest in it. It was not for the purpose of imposing any examination upon fishermen generally. It simply provided, as vessels were growing in size, that upon those above 25 tons, if any accident happened to the master, there might be somebody aboard
    1856
    with a knowledge of navigation sufficient to safely bring the vessel home. It was, therefore, for the purpose of applying examinations to the second hand, or mate. The Board of Trade had already power to require that a certificate of competency should be obtained by a master. That was the whole of the Bill. At the same time, he agreed with the noble Marquess that they should not push the measure through rapidly without the knowledge of the fishermen who were interested in it. They were, he believed, divided in opinion. It originally arose from the action of one section of the fishermen at Grimsby, and there was another section represented by the Smack Owners' Association who did not approve of it. He had taken every precaution that the Bill should not be hurried through the House, and he had postponed it from week to week, and from month to month, in order that those interested might have the opportunity of considering it. He would be glad to meet the views of the noble Marquess, and to obtain the opinion of the Board of Trade on the matter during the Recess.
    Motion agreed to; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House accordingly.

  THE FRANCO-SIAMESE CRISIS.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD LAMINGTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the position of the Franco-Siamese crisis? He said he put the question because of several disquieting rumours which had lately arisen in respect to the carrying out of the terms of the French ultimatum, and because of the fact that several fresh demands were reported to have been made as to Chantaboon, the dismissal of European officers, the Commercial Treaty, and the cutting of a canal through the Malay Peninsula. Perhaps the noble Lord could now give more complete information than was supplied when similar questions were asked in the House of Commons. But he also desired to call attention to one or two points in connection with the ultimatum itself. In the first place, could the Secretary of State say what was to be the fate of the States of Kan and Luang Prabang, neither of which could by any

    1857
    pretence be considered to be anything else than strictly Siamese, and whose territories lie on either bank of the Mekong? Would Parliament have any opportunity of considering the boundaries with reference to those States, and as between ourselves and France, before they were ratified? In the second place, he wished to call attention to the new principle introduced into the ultimatum of prohibiting a country from having troops on their own territory. As their Lordships were aware, within 25 kilometres of the right bank of the Mekong the Siamese were restricted from having troops for aught than police purposes. That vitiated the agreement as being a permanent settlement of the frontier question, and was a constant threat to the independence of Siam. He could believe that the French Government were acting in perfect good faith, and intended honourably to respect the independence of Siam; but the official who drew up the terms of this ultimatum must have had a good laugh in his sleeve when he inserted this section. Why, outside of Bangkok the only police were soldiers, and these would not be allowed to set foot in this belt of territory. Who would keep order then? It would not be long before the French found occasion to interfere in some paltry quarrel. If this restriction were imposed for the mere purpose of the avoidance of misunderstanding or animosities between the Siamese and French Annamite troops, why did the French not stipulate that they would not themselves have troops within 25 kilometres of the left bank of the Mekong? There was no use in disguising the fact that practically the frontier was 25 kilometres west of the river, and not the river itself. What, then, was certain to happen if the great Annamite chain of mountains, crossed by only a few paths, was an ineffective barrier to French aggression on the clashing of rival interests? What possibility was there of an imaginary line drawn through goodness knows what country, towns, or villages restraining the zeal of those who desired in the Indo-China Peninsula to recover a lost India? And, as he had said on a previous occasion, no neutral frontier existed between the Mekong and Menam Rivers, the country being a tableland. He fully accepted the assurances of the French
    1858
    Government to respect the integrity of Siam; but it would be hardly in human nature, and certainly not French human nature, to avoid pressing on into the richer and more fertile districts of Siam. What would happen to the valuable teak forests situated in the large north-eastern bend of the Mekong? The best method of working would be to float the logs down the Mekong to such a point where they could be put on the railway that it was proposed to make in continuation of the Bangkok-Korat line. It was to be remembered that it was the taking in hand of this railway and the consequent attraction of traffic from the Mekong to Bangkok that probably decided the French to put into execution their long - determined policy of having all lands east of the Mekong. Would the French, then, allow of the teak being worked in this manner? He greatly doubted it. It was more probable that once floated on the waters of the Mekong it would never be allowed on to a Siamese railway. This was only a detail, but one which showed what constant causes there were of future friction. There was no use in blinking our eyes to the fact that, though it might not be the intention of their Government, the French in Indo-China desired the whole of Siam, and when they made the move they would be supported by the Press at home. The only chance of making the new frontier a permanent solution of this vexed question was to hedge it round with every possible safeguard that diplomacy could suggest, and to state frankly that to break these guaranteed boundary arrangements would be regarded as an attack on British interests. So far it could not be said, except indirectly, that the large mouthful of Siam that France had swallowed had affected our interests; and taking action, as was the usual practice of the Foreign Office, very late in the day, the noble Lord had done the best under the circumstances. But the limit of our forbearance should now be reached—it was not only the trade with this country and our Colonies that would be at stake, but it was our Indian Empire that was so closely concerned in the preservation of the Kingdom of Siam. It would be interesting to know what was the opinion of the Secretary of State for India in this matter, and it would re-assure those engaged in commerce in

    1859
    the East, and many thousands of Indian subjects living in Siam, to know that the Indian Government was fully alive to the necessity of keeping free from the rule or influence of any European power. And, as connected with the Indian Government, he asked whether it was not their intention to ask for Consular posts wherever the French might be allowed to establish them? He had asked this question at length, but it was most unfortunate that no other Member of the House had interested himself in the question, as if, because Siam was some thousands of miles away, the fate of our fellow-countrymen and of our subjects were a matter of small importance.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): My Lords, I can assure my noble Friend that I always hear him on this subject with deep interest as a real expert on all Siamese matters; but he will also allow me to say that he speaks with greater freedom from responsibility than I can in the Office I have the honour to hold. His question is put so broadly that it could only lead to a statement on the whole position of the negotiations with regard to Siam which, in my opinion, would be in the highest degree detrimental to the public interest at this moment to make. It was only the other day that Lord Dufferin left England for the purpose of renewing those negotiations which were interrupted by the course of the French Elections; and I hope, therefore, that at this particularly delicate and critical moment my noble Friend will be satisfied with the assurance, which I am happy to think he may receive with the more readiness from the opinion he has been good enough to express upon our efforts so far, that Lord Dufferin has returned to Paris with the fullest and most definite instructions for the protection of British rights so far as they are affected by what he has called the Franco-Siamese crisis.

  EFFICIENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATION'S.
    *LORD SANDFORDcalled attention to a recent Circular (No. 333) of the Education Department; and asked the Lord President under what statutory authority the Department claims the right to say that "they will no longer
    1860
    take a school into consideration among those giving efficient elementary education" if the managers at any time "refuse to permit inspection" to which the school is not subject by law? He said, the Circular referred to the fact that, at the time of the inquiry into school provision in 1870, certain schools not under Government inspection were passed as giving efficient elementary education. Some of those schools might not be now efficient, and the Inspectors were asked to report such cases to the Department; and if the Report was unsatisfactory the Department would no longer accept the schools as among those giving sufficient elementary education to the district, and would take steps to supply the deficiency existing. On the first inquiry into the subject in 1871, all schools were invited to send Returns if they wished to be recognised, and those which did so were inspected. A list was made out of schools either receiving the annual grant, or which held aloof from the system from disinclination to take public money, or from dislike to the Conscience Clause, which they objected to as interfering with the ordinary religious instruction of the school. The latter were religions schools, the managers of which wished religion to permeate the whole daily education. No inspection was enforced in those schools beyond that ad hoc, and the fact that they were recognised as an efficient part of the school provision of the country did not give the Government the right to inspect them permanently. That was not considered very satisfactory, because there was no guarantee of efficiency; and when the Acts were amended it was proposed to introduce a clause to the effect that so long as a school was on the list of the school supply of the country as an efficient school it should, from time to time, be liable to inspection. He well remembered Mr. Forster's answer—it was very characteristic. He said—"No; I am not going to let you fellows bully the School Managers, simply because they do not want to have anything to say to you. They will soon come in, because the cost of education must rise, and they will want funds." Mr. Forster, at the same time, pointed out that the Act of 1870 allowed the Department from time to time, not oftener than once a year, to hold a survey of the school supply, either

    1861
    of the country in general, or of any particular district. He also pointed out that under the bye-laws, if a question were raised, it could be tried at any time. Under this Circular there was no certainty, as under an inquiry, that the public would be made acquainted with the matter. Everything necessary to start an inspection might be done in camerâ. If, on the Inspector desiring to inspect a school, the Managers declined, saying they were not liable to inspection, the Circular allowed the Inspector at once to declare the school inefficient, and refused to recognise it as part of the school supply of the district, and then the ultimate powers under the Act would be enforced. Mr. Forster thought that everything connected with the school supply of the district, however small, ought to be done openly, and with due notice to the parish. On what authority had this Circular been issued? There were very few schools now which had not come in under Government inspection, and had declined to be recognised. Mr. Forster's prophecy that the want of funds would drive them into the regulations of the Department had been realised. No fewer than 2,000 parishes in England had populations not exceeding 100, and there were 3,000 parishes with populations not exceeding 150. Those places could not possibly, from their size, be called upon to maintain schools of their own. This question about the distance of the schools from the population they supplied was carefully gone into at the time of the survey, and many schools were enlarged in order to enable them to accommodate children from neighbouring parishes upon which a School Board would otherwise have been thrust at great expense. The Managers of these schools, which had been apparently settled with, desired to know, therefore, why at this moment arrangements which had worked well for 20 years past should be interfered with? It was for the Inspector to say what was a reasonable distance for the children to go; and if the Department did not settle it, the bye-laws settled it for them. There was not a single district in England where the reasonable distance for attending schools had not been fixed; and now the Inspectors were instructed, if they did not think the distance reasonable, to open up the
    1862
    whole question by reporting to the Department. Not a word of guidance was given in the Circular, as was generally done, as to what was reasonable, and different Inspectors might form different opinions; and the last part of the Circular especially would affect small schools in the rural districts. He desired to know on what authority the Department had acted in issuing the Circular?
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, with regard to the last question which the noble Lord asked about the reasonable distance, I do not know why he should be so extremely jealous of the Department requiring information upon that subject. The arrangements are not in every possible case what they ought to be. You cannot stereotype these things. Conditions of population change; the means of communication alter, and it is desirable that you should, from time to time, have power to see how your system works, and whether there are any defects in it. I cannot see why the noble Lord thinks it the duty of the Department to dwell in a dark cave, and to refrain from remedying anything which might require to be altered in any particular school. It seems to me that the proper mode of conducting a great system is from time to time to obtain the necessary information to enable you to know what ought to be done. Of course, the Department may act without discretion; but, if so, that cannot be helped, because Parliament has entrusted to the Department the administration of a great system, and it seems to me that its first duty is to obtain all the information necessary to enable it to administer the system discreetly and wisely. With regard to the other point, I think I shall be able to entirely satisfy the noble Lord. I am sure ho would wish that these schools which stand outside the system should be tolerably efficient. Of course, it would be exceedingly unjust, when education is made compulsory, that there should be schools which do not supply the necessary education. I do not think anything could be more reasonable than that there should be some inquiry into the condition of these schools, more particularly when you remember that no less than 23 years have elapsed since they were recognised as efficient. Can anybody suppose that during the whole

    1863
    of that time no changes have taken place, and that those schools may not require to be looked into? The Circular may look very formidable, but I do not think there is anything very alarming in it. In the first instance, it requests that the Inspector shall propose to the Managers an inspection of the schools. If the Managers are willing, of course the matters go on without further difficulty; but the Department think that it is only right to let the School Managers know what will be the result if they receive this overture unfavourably and refuse to allow the inspection. The noble Lord asks upon what authority that is done. The Act of 1870 provided that a Return should be made, in the first instance, to enable the Department to determine where throughout the country the schools were efficient and where they were not. But the Act did not confine itself to a single Return. It said the Department might require Returns from those schools at any time, provided only one Return was required for each year.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the Act say they shall not only give a Return, but allow the Inspector to inspect?
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes, that is in the Act. The 1st clause says the Return is to be made; and the next that the Inspector may inspect the school after the Return is made. I would point out to the noble Marquess that if access is refused to our Inspector, technically a Return might be called for; but that merely means that we should have to use be much red tape and foolscap in sending to the Managers. We have a right to require the Return, and, having done that, we have a right to inspect everything which follows. But we do not wish to put the schools to the unnecessary trouble of making these Returns, and, therefore, we ask them to allow the Inspectors to visit the schools. If they do not do that, the consequence is pointed out to them. There is no intention to act harshly to the schools. All we desire is simply to know what their condition is; and I think, when we reflect that for 22 years and more there has been no inspection of them, anybody will say that it is the plain duty of the Department to ascertain what their present condition is. My own impression is
    1864
    that it would be better they should be inspected yearly, and it seems to me the Act contemplated there should be constant Returns made, because it provided that not more than one Return should be made in a year. They are schools which, for certain purposes, are recognised as part of our elementary educational system, and it is quite proper that they should be inspected by the Department and reported upon. I can only say there is not the slightest desire to destroy those schools, or to act harshly towards them.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.
    Commons' Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to Order).
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to move that the House do not insist upon its Amendment. The point was whether these schools should be allowed to be established or not under the Bill, and the words which were left out were—
    "In granting or withholding their consent under this section"—
    that, is to the establishment of the schools—
    "the Education Department shall take into consideration the sufficiency of accommodation available for the blind and deaf children in existing schools."
    And the Commons dissent for this reason—
    "Because it would diminish the powers given to School Authorities under the Bill, and raise considerable difficulties of Departmental administration as to limits of distance and otherwise."
    The objection is really this—that although the Department ought to have made some inquiry, and will make inquiry, with regard to the facilities afforded, it will hamper the action of the Department very much if you put this in. For instance, take London, it would be impossible, if there were any institutions in and around London, to say to what distance you might have to go. That Amendment, therefore, it seems to me is quite unnecessary. I am told there is a considerable feeling in the matter on the part of many Members of the other House, and that to insist upon this Amendment might incur some danger of the Bill being thrown over altogether.
    Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon their Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (SWINE FEVER) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.] (No.109.)
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read, and discharged.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 262.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.—(No. 263)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Evening Sitting of the House To-morrow do commence at Four o'clock.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock till To-morrow, Four o'clock.