Lords Sitting of 30 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Monday next.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.

  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  [ON RE-COMMITMENT.]
  Reported with further Amendments.

  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
    BELFAST WATER BILL.

      WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
      CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
      Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
    WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE WATER BILL [Lords].
    GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [Lords].
      WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
      Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BRISTOL GAS BILL [Lords].
    DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
    DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
      DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
      Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.: D. Northumberland (Chairman), E. Ellesmere, L. Braye, L. Middleton, and L. Aberdare; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
      House to be in Committee on Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
      House to be in Committee on Monday next.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &.
  ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  Letter from the Foreign Office to the Treasury, dated 15th June, 1899, with respect to the revocation of the Charter of the Royal Niger Company, and to the taking over by Her Majesty's Government of the administrative rights and powers of the Company, together with copies of the Treasury Minute on the subject, dated 30th June, 1899, and relative schedules. Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (EMPLOY MENT OF WOMEN OVERTIME IN WASHING BOTTLES, ETC.).
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending to factories and workshops in which the washing of bottles for use in the preserving of fruit is carried on, the special exception with respect to the employment of women overtime contained in Section 53 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, as amended by Sections 14 and 37 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Seventy-seventh Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1899; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition for suppression of the practice of; of the Pioneer Anti-Vivisection Society; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition in favour of; of the Sanitary Institute; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  OYSTERS BILL [Lords].
  Petition in favour of; of the Sanitary Institute; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, it is with confidence that I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to

  1113
  this Bill, because it is in no sense a party measure, while at the same time it is of considerable importance, and a step in the right direction in improving the education of the children in our schools. That it is not a party measure can be gathered from the fact that the principle of the Bill, that of raising the age of exemption from eleven to twelve years, was adopted in the Education Bill of 1897, which was brought into Parliament by Her Majesty's present Government. That Bill, however, only got to Second Reading, and this year the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Robson), a member of the Opposition, introduced that principle into the Bill which I am now conducting through your Lordships' House. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I think I may fairly say that this is not a party measure, and I hope I shall be able to convince your Lordships that it is a very important Bill in the cause of education. The present law as regards half-timers is that when a child has attained a certain age, which is fixed by Parliament, it is able to claim partial exemption if it passes a standard of examination which is fixed by the local authorities, not by Parliament, and which therefore varies in different districts. I think it must be admitted, both from experience in this country and on the Continent, that the half-time system is absolutely necessary, both in manufacturing and agricultural districts. At the same time it must be admitted that the half-time system is disadvantageous to children from the educational point of view. That is not to be wondered at when your Lordships consider the kind of work that children in manufacturing districts have to do. A child that has worked four or five hours in a mill in the morning is naturally somewhat tired, languid, and inattentive to its lessons in school in the afternoon, and it is found that in alternate weeks, when the school work is in the morning and the mill work in the afternoons, the half-timers do no give that attention to their books which the other children do. Experience shows that children who go to work as half-timers are much less capable of receiving instruction than those who go through a regular course of school education. Tests have shown that the half-timer very soon falls
  1114
  behind other school children in educational progress. I will venture to quote to your Lordships a case which was referred to in the House of Commons, and I do so the more readily because the facts of that case afford a sufficient answer to the main argument adduced by the opponents of this measure—that it is most important that children at the earliest age possible should acquire a technical knowledge of the work, whether in the mills or in the field, which they would probably have to take up when they left school. The case to which I allude is known as the Bolton case. In Bolton there are 538 technical knowledge scholarships, and something between 3,000 and 4,000 half-timers, and yet out of all those scholarships only one child who had been a half-timer secured one, and at the time he secured that scholarship he was not a half-timer. That shows very distinctly that there is a disadvantage from an educational point of view in the half-time system, and it follows that the age of partial exemption ought to be raised as high as possible consistently with the efficient working of the half-time system. Those who are interested in education must have been gratified to see the great change of opinion that has taken place in favour of raising the school exemption age, both in the agricultural and manufacturing districts. I can speak upon this point with some confidence, because when I had the honour of being Vice-President of the Council in 1885 and 1886 the school age exemption was ten, and the educational standard, which, as I have told your Lordships, is fixed by the local authorities, was the second standard in the agricultural districts, and the third, and sometimes the fourth, but generally the third, in the manufacturing districts. Your Lordships know how small is the amount of knowledge required in a child to pass these standards, and, coupling that with the fact that the standard of age exemption was ten years, you will readily understand what a deplorable state of things existed in those days from an educational point of view. Yet, after very careful inquiry, the matter having been brought under the attention of the then Lord President of the Council and myself, it was found that in both the agricultural and the manufacturing districts there was so strong an opinion against raising the age that it would have

  1115
  been difficult—I might almost say impossible—for a Government to have introduced and carried a measure to effect that purpose. Nor, indeed, were we more fortunate in endeavouring to induce the local authorities to raise their educational standard. They declined to do so, and matters had to be left as they were. It was not until 1891, under the Factory Act, that some advance was made in this direction. There was a clause introduced into that Act which prohibited the employment of children in factories and workshops under the age of eleven years. That clause was not introduced for educational purpose, but for the natural and desirable purpose of improving the health and the condition of the children who were employed in factories and workshops. At the same time, I think that that legislation in 1891, although for a different object, facilitated very much the raising of the age in the Education Act which was passed in 1893. Happily, since that time there has been a further change of opinion—as the saying is, much water has flowed under the bridge since then—and so great has been the change of opinion that it has been possible to introduce this measure into Parliament, raising the age from eleven to twelve years. I may be asked how we can test the change of opinion. In the first place, I should say we may test it by the very slight opposition which was given to this measure in the House of Commons. It was introduced by Mr. Robson in a speech of great ability, and the facts were put forward by the hon. Member in a temperate manner. I should like, in passing, to join with Sir John Gorst and Sir William Harcourt in paying my humble tribute of praise to the admirable tact and judgment with which Mr. Robson steered the Bill through the House of Commons. The Bill was opposed mainly by some Lancashire Members who represented the textile industries, but it must not be supposed that the manufacturing interests of the entire county of Lancashire are opposed to this measure, because it will be seen that as many Lancashire Members were found in the majority which supported the Bill as were against it in the minority. I believe also that the Lancashire Members who spoke in support of the measure were as many in number as those who opposed it. The Bill passed the Second Reading by a majority of 317 against 59, and many of those fifty-nine Members, who repre-
  1116
  sented agricultural districts, were satisfied at a later stage with the proviso which has been introduced into the Bill, and to which I shall have to call attention in a few minutes, and supported the Bill. All attempts to restrict the measure in Committee were defeated by large majorities, and in the result the Third Reading was carried without a Division. Another test as to the change of public opinion is that many persons who were opposed to raising the age in 1893, and who prophesied evil results from such a course, have since found that their prophecies have been falsified and are now very warm supporters of the Bill. Another test, and a very important one, is that those interested in education—those most capable of forming an opinion, because they themselves are well acquainted with the course of teaching in the schools, heartily support this Bill. The teachers are unanimous in favour of raising the age from eleven to twelve years. No doubt they would like to see it raised even higher, because they believe that the half-time system is not only injurious to the half-time children, but affects the other children in the school, as it tends to interrupt the regular course of instruction and to necessitate many lessons being taught over again. They hail this measure as a step in the right direction. Managers of schools and inspectors of schools are also unanimous in favour of raising the age of exemption; and, therefore, it may be confidently asserted that we have a strong body of men—men most competent to judge—supporting this Bill. I desire also to point out, as a further reason for passing this Bill, that in raising the age we are really fulfilling pledges which were given by this country through its representatives at the Conference at Berlin in 1890. I have often heard it said that this country was under no pledge in this matter. I agree that we were under a moral pledge I will venture to read to your lordships a passage from a speech made in the other House by Sir John Gorst, one of our representatives at that Conference. Sir John Gorst said:
  "We went to the Berlin Conference rather with a view to inducing the other nations in Europe to adopt the same restrictions upon textile and other manufactures which, it was, represented, were some burden on British trade. The only point in which we were behind many of the nations of Europe was the age at which we allowed children to take part

  1117
  in these industries, and it was thought at the time to be a very good bargain for this country to do away with the advantage of juvenile labour in order to obtain from the other nations of Europe the regulations which we consented to at that Conference."
  As the other nations have performed their undertaking, the time has arrived when we should attempt to give effect to what I cannot but consider was a pledge on our part to raise the age of exemption. The proviso in this Bill to which I have alluded provides that—
  "The local authority for any district may by bye-law for any parish within their district, fix thirteen years as the minimum age for exemption from school attendance in the case of children to be employed in agriculture, and in such parish such children over eleven and under thirteen years of age who have passed the standard fixed for partial exemption from school attendance by the bye-laws of the local authority shall not be required to attend school more than two hundred and fifty times in any year."
  As everyone must see, there is a great distinction between the case of children in agricultural districts and those in manufacturing districts. The distinction is quite sufficient to justify different treatment, and, if necessary, the application of certain provisions in the one case which are not required in, and perhaps would not be applicable to the other case. Although many sanitary improvements have been made in the mills, the work there cannot be said to improve the health of the children. The converse is the case with regard to the work done by children in the fields and in the open air. Their health is improved, and they are thus more capable of receiving instruction. Again, the work in the mills goes on day after day throughout the year uninterruptedly, in fine weather or bad, in sunshine or rain. This is not so in the case of agricultural work. This proviso, which was carried in the House of Commons by a majority of 245 to 26, and is made with the approval of all the Members for the agricultural districts, only deals with Agricultural work, and is optional. It is intended to meet the special wants of agriculture. During certain months of the year in these rural districts children are required by farmers, and so strong is the feeling in these districts, and so urgent is the case, that it is found very difficult to enforce attendance of children in schools. The school attendance officers shut their eyes to what is going on when the education of children is neglected by their parents, and are 10th to issue summonses
  1118
  upon them for the non-attendance of their children at school. Magistrates, also, during those months instead of inflicting fines upon parents, are content to give them a caution. Therefore there is good reason for making a change in the direction of this proviso. I will read to your Lordships a passage, bearing out what I have just stated, from the speech delivered by Mr. Robson in the House of Commons. He was commenting upon some returns of attendances in rural schools, and said—
  "Whereas one school in a rural district had been open 338 times, the attendances of various children had averaged from 54 to 64, and a little judicious inquiry brought to light the fact that the children had been actually employed on the land illegally by members of the School Board for that district. In another school, out of 442 possible attendances, the returns show 22, 65, 78, and 98 attendances, while no summons for irregular attendance had been taken out for four years."
  The proviso, as will be seen, does not conflict with the educational character of the Bill. It does not attempt to lessen the age of exemption, but only applies where the age of exemption has been raised by local authorities to 13. It is, in fact, the adoption of a scheme which prevails in Germany and Switzerland under which children are allowed to work in summer and attend school in winter. This plan, known as summer work and winter schooling, has worked most admirably, and in certain districts in those countries the exemption age is as high as 14, 15, and even 16 years. Your Lordships will observe that the child will not lose any schooling. A child of 11 will work the winter in school. It will be exempted during the summer of that year, and on arriving at 12 would, were it not for this proviso, be able to leave school at once, but under this proviso, as the age of exemption is raised to 13, the child will get another winter's schooling. It will, therefore, be seen that the child gets two winters' schooling for one summer's work. I hope this proviso will be largely used in agricultural districts. By this system the parents will obtain the earnings of their children, who will be working legally in the fields for a period of the year, and they will be saved the annoyance of visits from the school attendance officer, and of summonses. The adoption of this system will also be of great advantage to the farmers, for they will be able to count upon children's labour just during the months when it is most wanted. The proviso has been very

  1119
  carefully considered by the Education Department, and by the experienced officials of that Department, who see no reason why it should not be passed and work satisfactorily. I commend the Bill very heartily to your Lordships, who, I think, must concur in the opinion of the Education Department, and of those who have studied the question of education, that if Parliament raises the age standard it will procure for the children in our schools both increased physical and educational advantages. I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (the Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am very glad to see that this Bill is likely not to meet with any opposition in this House, and I think the House is very much indebted to the noble Lord for the speech in which he has moved its Second Reading. As he has said, the educational advantages of this measure are undoubted. All the educational authorities are united in desiring the change which the Bill will effect. The teachers are in favour of it, the managers of schools are almost unanimously in favour of it, and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools have repeatedly urged the necessity of making this change. The only question which remained in doubt was whether the working classes generally were willing to make the sacrifice of the wages which their children might earn through the half-time system in order that they might have the benefit of a more complete period of schooling. But, as the noble Lord has told us, there is very little doubt remaining on that point, and I think it has been conclusively proved, by the very large majorities which this measure obtained in the other House, that the opinion of the working-classes generally is very different from what it was a short time ago. I have no doubt that the Members of the other House of Parliament are all most anxious that our education system should be made as complete as possible, but, however great may be the educational zeal of Members of Parliament, I doubt very much whether it would extend to the point of voting for a measure, not promoted by the Government, which was very strongly disapproved of by their constituents. The only opposition which
  1120
  was offered to the Bill in the other House proceeded from a small section of Members representing manufacturing constituencies, and even they did not defend the half-time system, but only pointed out that it was a dying system, and that it would be better that it should be allowed to expire from natural causes rather than that it should be put an end to by legislative action. The position of the agricultural labourer is in so many parts of the country one of such great hardship and difficulty that the small wages which a child is able to earn by agricultural labour may make a very considerable difference in the income of the family, but I believe that the Amendment which was introduced in the House of Commons, and to which my noble friend has referred, has removed most of the objections which were felt by Members representing agricultural constituencies, and that the proposal which has been made will make it possible for a child to remain longer at school, but that during the last two years of his school life he will have holidays which will enable him to work during the summer, and attend school during the winter. That Amendment has removed every objection felt by the agricultural districts to this Bill. I am glad there is now a prospect that what almost amounted to a pledge on the part of the Government at the Conference of Berlin is likely to be redeemed, and I believe this Bill will make a very great improvement in our educational system.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing my cordial support of this Bill. There is a certain satisfaction in thinking that at last, after, I believe, nine or ten years' delay, Parliament is now endeavouring partly to redeem the pledge given by a former Government at the International Conference. I think I am right in saying that we were in favour of the age of exemption being increased to thirteen, so that we have not achieved after all these years very great progress in this direction. Still, this Bill is an excellent step in advance, and I think it is very satisfactory to observe that, certainly in this House, it meets with, I think I may say, general approval and support. I quite understand the natural reluctance of the working classes to part with earnings

  1121
  which, no doubt, may in some cases be valuable to them, but I feel quite confident that, although the taking of this step may seem to some people rather difficult, in the long run when the Act has been at work it will be found that the hardship will be no longer felt. It is curious to observe how step by step we have advanced in the direction of securing the better education of our Children, and I cannot help thinking that many things which a few years ago were regarded with great apprehension and suspicion are stow accepted as matters of course. I shall not criticise the Amendment relating to children in agricultural districts, because I believe it is the result of careful consideration by Members of the other House well acquainted with the subject. It seems to them that the Amendment will give entire satisfaction, and I have no doubt it is well adapted to meet the case of children in agricultural districts. I see with the greatest satisfaction that the Bill is passing through this House, and I would venture here to congratulate Mr. Robson upon his success in thus far carrying this, one of the most useful and important measures that have been introduced for some time past.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am glad to join in the general expressions of approval of this Bill, and I rejoice that, although it has been delayed, this step is now being taken. One of the circumstance, which seriously impede the education of children all over the country is that at so early an age they leave school, and forget a great deal of what they have learnt. I very much hope that in the agricultural districts thirteen instead of twelve years of age will be fixed upon.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I desire also to express satisfaction that this Bill is likely to become law. I believe that it is accompanied by some positive advantages in the combination at an early period of practical work with education. The working of the measure will, I have no doubt, do something to check that migration of children from the country to the towns which is a very serious evil from many points of view. It not only diminishes the amount of labour at the disposal of the farmers, but in a large number of instances the children them-
  1122
  selves incur serious moral dangers by going to the towns. By being retained at school till they are thirteen years of age they will be without this temptation, and also have their character strengthened. It is an unquestionable fact that a boy's character is formed between the age of twelve and sixteen, and by this Bill children will have the advantage of being under instruction up to a later age. I regard the Bill as a real moral gain for the children of the country.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (accordingly), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  ELEMENT EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords].
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 2.
  LORD REAY: I desire to ask the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, a question with regard to boarding out, which is dealt with in b of Sub-section 1 of this clause. There is a considerable difference of opinion with regard to the advantages of boarding out, and it will have to be placed under very stringent regulations. I am aware, of course, that the Departmental Committee reported in favour of boarding out, but they suggested so many safeguards that the difficulty will be considerable. In Scotland the boarding out system, as applied to normal children, has been very successful, but it will be found that the number of homes to which defective and epileptic children can be safely sent is very small. I would remind the noble Duke of the evidence which was given before the Local Government Board Departmental Committee of 1896 on the education and maintenance of children by the person who is certainly most competent to express an opinion upon this subject. I refer to Miss Mason, the Local Government Board inspector of boarded-out children. She was asked by the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Mundella:
  "You say you think the feeble-minded child should not be boarded out?"

  1123
  Miss Mason's answer was:
  "No. I am sure of it."
  I shall not propose an Amendment to this clause. All I ask is that the regulations which are to be made shall be of such a nature that there will be every guarantee that these children will be well looked after, and that the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, to the effect that the managers of the special classes are the proper persons to form or appoint the Boarding Out Committee, will be enforced. Sub-section 4 of this clause provides that a school authority may, in respect of children resident in their district and attending certified special classes or schools in the district of another school authority, contribute to that other authority the proportionate cost of the provision and maintenance of such special classes or schools. I do not think it is sufficient simply to limit this to residents. I think you should also enact that the school authority to whose district the children properly belong should be made liable for the expenditure. The cases are two-fold. One is the case of a child resident on the fringe of a district where these classes or schools are, but resident in a district where these classes and schools are not; and the other is the case of a child which is taken from its proper home and sent into a district where these classes are provided to reside with other people, thereby throwing the expenditure in respect of that child on the school authority, which is not the authority the Bill recognises to be the proper authority to bear that expenditure. I therefore wish to ask whether, at a future stage, there will be any objection to add words so that the clause would read, "in respect of children resident in, or who properly belong to their district," and whether a clause cannot be introduced after Clause 9 making it quite clear that if, on the one hand, it is simply permissive for a school authority or a board of guardians to make a payment, on the other hand you do not throw the burden of receiving these children on the school authority to which they do not belong. It seems to me obvious that a clause should be inserted protecting the ratepayers of the district which has erected these schools, as against the district which has not done so. The cost of education of a defective child in London is about £8 8s. per annum. The grant
  1124
  from the Government is about £1 7s., so that the burden thrown on the ratepayers comes to about £7 18s. Clearly, it would be very unfair, under these circumstances, that a defective child should become a burden on the ratepayers of a district to which it does not belong, simply because that district happens to meet a want which the other district to which the child belongs has not met.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: With regard to the first point raised by the noble Lord, I will make a note of the observations he has made and see what can be done to meet the difficulty. As to the second point, I am prepared to insert in Section 4 of Clause 2 the words, "or properly belonging to." The section will then read:
  "A school authority may, in respect of children resident in, or properly belonging to their district, and attending certified special classes or schools in the district of another school authority, contribute to that other authority the proportionate cost of the provision and maintenance of such special classes or schools."
  I am not quite certain that legal difficulties will not arise as to the interpretation of the words "or properly belonging to," but I am told that the draughtsmen have exercised their ingenuity and cannot find words to better carry out our intention. As to the other point of the noble Lord, I shall be prepared to move the insertion of a clause at the end of the Bill providing that nothing in the Act shall be construed as imposing a duty on a school authority to receive in a special class or school established by them any child who is resident in, or in their opinion properly belongs to, the district of another school authority; or is resident in a workhouse or in any institution to which it has been sent by the guardians from a workhouse or boarded out by the guardians, unless that other school authority, or, as the case may be, the guardians, are willing to contribute towards the expenses of the education and maintenance of the child such sum as may be agreed upon between the authorities concerned.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: My Lords, the Bill provides that school authorities may make what arrangements they like for ascertaining whether there are defective children in their district, and, if there are, they may provide for their education in three ways; but there is no provision, so far as I can see, to compel the school authorities to assure

  1125
  themselves, by means of expert medical advice and guidance, as to whether the children admitted into these institutions under the Bill are really of the class defined in the Bill. I do not think it is reasonable to leave the settlement of so grave a question as this to the School Board authorities themselves. Those who have had a lifelong experience in the care and maintenance of idiots and imbeciles find it a very difficult task to draw a dividing line between defective children and imbeciles. The effect of this Bill, unless it is provided that no child shall be boarded or lodged in an institution without a medial certificate stating that he or she, as the case may be, is not an idiot or an imbecile, will be to create institutions for the care, maintenance, and education of a higher grade of imbeciles called defective children, but not very dissimilar from those who are now being maintained and cared for in imbecile asylums, certified under the name of imbeciles. It must be remembered, moreover, that there will be no annual or periodical inspection by the Lunacy Commissioners, as in the case of asylums for idiots and imbeciles, of the children in the institutions proposed to be set up under this Bill, and this fact makes it all the more important that no child should be admitted into the institutions without a medical certificate to the effect that the child is neither an imbecile nor an idiot. I had thought of moving the rejection of that part of the interpretation clause which alludes to institutions, but it appeared to me that some store might be laid on the creation of these institutions by those who were promoting the Bill, which I gladly acknowledge is likely to prove a very useful and valuable one. Therefore I only propose to move a proviso to Sub-section 1 (c), which in my opinion, is absolutely essential, and imperatively necessary. I do not object to the provisions in the Bill for the boarding out of children in houses situated near the schools to be created under the Bill, and for boarding and lodging defective children in establishments, but what I do object to is the absence of any adequate security that only those children for whom the schools are provided shall be admitted. I also regret the absence of any provision enabling those children to be excluded who have been wrongfully admitted. I therefore hope the noble Duke in charge of the Bill will be able to
  1126
  allow the proviso which I now beg to move to be inserted in the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Sub-section 1 (c), page 2, line 11, after 'children' to insert 'Provided that no child shall be boarded or lodged in an institution under this Act without a medical certificate stating that he or she, as the case may be, is not an idiot or imbecile. Such certificate shall be renewed yearly during the residence of the child in such institution."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  EARL EGERTON: My Lords, I should like to point out that there is no provision in the Bill to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that school authorities should be required to appoint a medical officer to advise them in the discrimination of these children. The Amendment of the noble Marquess, however, bears upon this matter. The School Board for London have appointed a medical officer—Dr. Shuttleworth, I believe—to advise them, and I hope that, even if provision is not made in the Bill, the Education Department will see that the school authorities appoint medical officers to advise them, not only as to the selection of these children, and the discrimination between them and imbeciles, but also to inspect the homes to which children may be sent.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the noble Earl who has just spoken has suggested the real answer to this Amendment. These are matters which, in our opinion, are better left to the Education Department than provided for in the Bill. We believe that the Amendment is quite unnecessary, because, under Section 1 (a) of Clause 1, which has already been passed, the object of the noble Marquess is sufficiently provided for. The arrangements under that section are to be made with the approval of the Education Department, and in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee. The Education Department would insist, in the first place, that no child should be admitted to any class or school or any institution who did not satisfy Section 1 (a) of Clause 1; secondly, that the name of the medical man certifying should be submitted to them so that they could assure themselves that he was a man conversant with such cases; and, thirdly, the Education Department reserve to themselves the final decision as to whether the case is suitable or not. These arrangements would, in our

  1127
  opinion, meet the case far better than the Amendment, which only touches a small part of the subject. If these matters are to be regulated by Act of Parliament the Amendment ought to be very considerably extended. I hope, however, that what I have said as to the intention of the Education Department to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee will satisfy the noble Lords who have spoken that the objects they have in view will really be attained.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 22, alter the words 'resident in' to insert 'or property belonging to.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should be glad if some noble and learned Lord would inform the House what "properly belonging to" means. I am not aware of any definition which determines who belongs to a district or a parish except the definition in the Poor Law. It is there provided that every person who is born in a particular place belongs by settlement to that particular place, subject, however, to this very large alteration—namely, that anyone who has resided for one continuous year in any place cannot be considered as belonging to the place of his original settlement, although he will revert to it if he leaves the place in which he has resided for a year. It seems to me that unless a precise definition is provided in this Bill you will get into all kinds of difficulties, and have very interesting law suits between the various parishes as to which parish should maintain these children. There is nothing which delights some people more than litigation of this sort, which is most unprofitable and unsatisfactory, and the cost of which falls on the ratepayers of both parishes. I hope the Bill will go to a Standing Committee, where it may be possible to insert smile precise definition.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I stated, in the few remarks I made in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay), that I was not absolutely satisfied that the words might not give rise to some difficulty. The case we have in view is that in which children are sent from their homes to reside with a relative in a parish
  1128
  where a suitable school or class is provided. It is only reasonable and just that if a child is sent for that purpose into a parish to which it does not belong, the parish to which it properly belongs should pay for it.
  On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 9, amended, and agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I now beg to move, in order to meet the difficulty suggested by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay), the insertion of a new clause after Clause 9.
  Amendment moved—
  "At end of Clause 9 to insert, as a new clause: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing a duty on a school authority to receive in a special class or school established by them any child who (a) is resident in, or in their opinion properly belongs to, the district of another school authority; or (b) is resident in a workhouse or in any institution to which it has been sent by the guardians from a workhouse, or boarded out by the guardians, unless that other school authority, or, as the case may be, the guardians, are willing to contribute towards the expenses of the education and maintenance of the child such sum as may be agreed upon between the authorities concerned.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  On Question, "That this clause be here inserted," agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments; Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 150.)

  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL [Lords].
  House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.
QUESTIONS.

  RE-HOUSING OF DISPLACED PERSONS.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I have arranged with the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, to postpone the question standing on the

  1129
  Paper in my name, in which I had given notice to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the action of the London School Board in respect of the site for a proposed school in Bethnal Green, known as the Wood Street site, whereby, although more than twenty houses, occupied by persons belonging to the labouring classes, are taken, the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as to the re-housing of persons displaced are evaded; and, if so, would Her Majesty's Government, in view of the growing seriousness of the overcrowding problem in East London, take steps to prevent such evasion in tho future.

  PROTECTION OF PLOVERS' EGGS.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Home Secretary has power to prohibit the taking of plovers' eggs in any county after a certain date without extending the prohibition to the whole year. As your Lordships are aware, the Home Secretary has power to forbid the taking of eggs of certain birds during the whole of the year. Certain county councils have applied to the Home Secretary to prohibit the taking of plovers' eggs during the whole of the year, and the Home Secretary has in some cases very naturally declined to sanction such a prohibition. In the first place, a good many of us are very fond of eating plovers' eggs; and, secondly, they are more or less a subject of trade, and it would be a serious matter to preclude the taking of these eggs during the whole of the year. But I have been told that shepherds bring plovers' eggs into country towns well into June, when not more than one out of six is really fit for food. The question is whether the Home Secretary has power to prohibit taking the eggs for a part of the year only. There is considerable doubt on that point in the minds of county councils, and I have been asked by the County Councils Association to put the question of which I have given notice.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, in answer to the noble Duke, I have to say that there has been no special application to the Secretary of State for the Home Department from any local authority for an Order such as he describes; that is to
  1130
  say, there has been no application to the Home Secretary to prohibit the taking of plovers' eggs for a certain portion of the year without prohibiting for the whole year. The subject has been under the consideration of the Home Secretary, and, as a doubt has been raised whether Section 2 of the Act of 1894, which deals with this question, gives power to make an Order such as that indicated, he is taking the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the point. Of course, if it is found that the Home Secretary has the power, it will be within his discretion to exercise it whenever application is made to him.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.