Lords Sitting of 21 March 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SPECIAL JURIES BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to explain that the object of this Bill is a very simple one, but one which has been urgently required for some time. The Bill is intended to remove the inconvenience which has been found to arise when the same set of special jurors are required to be in attendance for the trial of the whole of the special jury cases to be heard at Assizes. The Bill will enlarge the power of the Sheriff, so as to enable him to summon a greater number than 48 special jurymen, in order that they may be divided into two sets, one of them serving during the first part and the other during the latter part of the Assize.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  DAY SCHOOLS CODE.
  LORD COLCHESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord President of the Council (1) whether the words proposed to be added to Article 34 of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools will give the inspector the power of forcing upon managers the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in the matter
  366
  of central classes for pupil teachers; and, if so, if he will reconsider the proposed addition; (2) whether the effect of the alteration of Article 61 of the Day School Code will be to withdraw from some teachers passing in the first or second division of their final examination the right to superintend pupil teachers; and, if so, whether he will reconsider the proposed alteration. These Questions refer to two changes in the Code for Day Schools, which have excited some misapprehension among many persons interested in education, and especially among those connected with Voluntary schools, as it is not at once apparent whether they are intended to be merely formal changes, or whether they will make any substantial alteration in the present rules. With regard to the first Question, if power is to be given to the inspector to regulate the time-table as to evening classes for pupil teachers only, the matter is of no great importance, but some alarm has been caused in connection with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which have lately been laid before the House. The Committee recommend that these classes should not be held later than 5 o'clock in the afternoon. If this change is carried into effect it will be extremely prejudicial to many schools in which pupil teachers are employed, by drawing them from the schools in the afternoon; and it is important to know whether there is any intention of giving the inspector the power of forcing upon the managers large changes of this character. The second point refers to another alteration in Clause 61. As it at present stands, teachers who have attended the second year's examination for certificates are not permitted to superintend pupil teachers unless they are, in the examination, placed in the first or second division. In the new Code all reference to the first and second division is omitted. I should like the noble Duke to explain whether being placed in the first or second division is no longer to constitute a qualification to superintend pupil teachers, and, if so, what in future is to be the qualification which will give this right.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the reply to the noble Lord's first Question is that the words proposed to be added to Article 34 are—
  "and the time-table must be approved by the inspector."
  It is not intended that these words should give the inspector the power of forcing upon managers the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Pupil Teacher System. Under previous Codes it was necessary that the Department should be "satisfied with the general arrangements" of central classes, and they have generally required the time-table to be submitted to them before expressing their approval of such classes. My reply to the second Question is that the effect of the alteration of Article 61 will not be to withdraw from some teachers passing in the first or second division of their final examination the right to superintend pupil teachers. The second year's certificate examination is now divided into two parts, and there is no "first or second division" of the whole examination, and it is, therefore, necessary to make a verbal alteration in Article 61. Teachers who passed in the first or second division in their second year's examination from 1891 to 1896 inclusive were indicated in the list as entitled to superintend pupil teachers; and they will, therefore, under the new Article, retain their existing right in the matter. I hope and trust these explanations will show the noble Lord that the alterations in the Code have had no such intention as he appears to have thought they had.
  LORD NORTON: Though the answers of the noble Duke to the two Questions put to him seem to be satisfactory, I do not think your Lordships can judge either of the Questions or the Answers, as the new annual education Code, which is a rather important document, became law by lying in "dummy" on your Lordships' Table for 30 days.
  House adjourned at 4.42.