Lords Sitting of 22 July 1902

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

1. Finance.

2. Royal Naval Reserve Volunteers.

3. Cremation.

4. Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment.

5. British Museum.

6. Immoral Traffic (Scotland).

7. Police Reservists.

8. Prison Officers (Pensions).

9. Labour Bureaux (London).

10. University of Wales (Graduates).

11. Musical Copyright.

12. Pauper Children (Ireland).

13. London Government Scheme (South wark).

14. Pilotage Provisional Order.

15. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

16. Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Orders.

17. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

18. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

19. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

20. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

21. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

22. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

23. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).

24. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

25. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15).

26. Local Government Provisional Order (Gas).

27. Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes).

28. Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law).

29. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

30. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

878

31. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

32. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4).

33. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Gas).

34. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes).

35. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2).

36. Paisley Gas Provisional Order Confirmation.

37. London (Poplar) Provisional Order.

38. Buckie Burgh Extension and Buckie (Craigenroan) Harbour Order Confirmation.

39. Irvine Corporation Order Confirmation.

40. Stonehaven Town Hall Order Confirmation.

41. Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

42. Rothesay Tramways (Extension) Order Confirmation.

43. West Hampshire Water.

44. Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway.

45. Bedford Corporation Water.

46. South Metropolitan Gas.

47. Belfast Corporation.

48. Broadstairs Gas.

49. Rickmansworth Gas.

50. Great Northern Railway (No. 1).

51. Bradford Corporation.

52. Northumberland Electric Tramways.

53. Rusthall Manor.

54. City of London (Public Health).

55. Kent Water.

56. South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.

57. West Ham Gas.

58. Tieehurst Water.

59. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways.

60. Knaresborough Improvement.

61. North British Railway (Steam Vessels).

62. Halifax Corporation.

63. Buxton Urban District Council.

64. Great Northern Railway (No. 2).

65. Kent Electric Power.

66. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels).

67. Leamington Corporation.

68. Bristol Water.

879

69. Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power.

70. Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads.

71. Chard Gas.

72. Commercial Gas.

73. Great Central Railway.

74. West Gloucestershire Water.

75. Huddersfield Corporation.

76. Manchester Corporation (General Powers).

77. Imperial Institute.

78. North British Railway (General Powers).

79. Nottingham and Retford Railway.

NEW PEER.
SIR FRANCIS WALLACE GRENFELL, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Lieutenant-General in the Army, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the forces, with the rank of General, in Malta, having been created Baron Grenfell of Kilvey, in the county of Glamorgan—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SAT FIRST.
  LORD TENTERDEN.
  Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  FINCHLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHAT HAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a (The Earl of Dudley); agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  COMMONS REGULATION (SODBURY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT. 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of—

  I. A light railway in the counties of Kent and Surrey, from Orpington to Tatsfield.

  II. Light railways in the rural district of Halesowen, in the county of Worcester.

  III. A light railway in the West Riding of the county of York from Holmfield to Southowram.

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMEND MENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to place the conditions under which money may be borrowed by municipalities in Scotland for electric lighting purposes upon a more convenient and logical basis. Up to the present, time many burghs have been limited by the amount which they are allowed to borrow under their local and other Acts for lighting by gas. This, in practice, has been found to be extremely inconvenient, and, as time goes on, it will altogether unduly limit the powers tit some of these thriving municipalities to light their towns by electricity. The way in which it is proposed to proceed in future is to give burghs power to borrow, subject to the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. That is a method which has been found convenient in other matters, and for which there is ample precedent. The passage of this Bill is ardently desired by municipalities in Scotland, some of which have had to obtain private orders and private bills to relieve them of the restrictions under which they are placed, and the Scottish Office think it would be better to place the matter once and for all upon a more logical and permanent basis. I do not anticipate any opposition to the proposal; on the contrary. I have had many representations which lead me to believe that the passage of the Bill is ardently desired, and I hope your Lordships will agree now to read the Bill a second time.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS— TREFOR TRAIAN BENEF1CE.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising "To call the attention of the House to the estimate of the Diocesan Surveyor of St. Asaph of £1,586 for the repairs of the buildings of three farms of sixty, forty, and twenty acres respectively, belonging to the benefice of Trefor Traian,

  883
  Denbighshire, now in course of sequestration, and to the action of other surveyors; and to move for Papers"—said: My Lords, I have felt it necessary to bring this case before the House, because it is one of great and undeserved hardship, and also because it shows the necessity of altering the plan upon which these surveyors are appointed, and how desirable it is that the glebe lands of farms should be sold as soon as possible. In the present state of agriculture, things are not as they were in former times. The Rev. H. F. Owen, the incumbent of Trefor Traian, is near seventy years of age, and has a wife and five children still dependent upon him. His only fault is that he is old, and has had as many as eleven children, one of whom is in the Denbigh Asylum; and that having had to bring them up upon £95 a year, and whatever he might get from tourists during the summer for showing Vale Crucis Abbey, which he rents from its lay owner, he has not been able to prevent three farms from becoming dilapidated. I have no doubt that the bishop thought he was too old, and that it would be a good thing to get rid of him. Still, he ought to have waited until, in the natural course of events, he died, instead of endeavouring to force him to resign. The three farms that are dilapidated are of sixty, forty, and twenty acres respectively, and give the incumbent a rent of £71. He also receives £24 per annum from the Bounty Office.
  The bishop has sequestered the benefice, and offers the incumbent only £30 a year to live upon. If the incumbent will resign his cure, he offers him £70 a year, but that would be insufficient to live upon, especially as he has been deprived of some clerical charities amounting to about £50 a year; besides which, if he resigned his benefice, the creditors would take his pension. As far as I am aware, up to the present time, no attempt has been made to sell these farms, two of which adjoin the property of a large landowner, and the other that of another landowner. I know that in the case of the two farms no attempt has been made to approach the landowner, nor has the incumbent's suggestion been acted upon to let the farms as bye-takes or accommodation
  884
  land, irrespective of buildings, to adjoining farmers. I know that the incumbent is correct in saying that if they were let in that way they would bring in nearly as good a rent, because my agent recently visited a church farm of forty-seven acres, without any house or buildings other than some old cow-sheds, which is let for £45—a good rent for Anglesey, especially as some of the land is on the shale. If the Trefor Traian farms could be let in the same way, there would be no need to trouble about rebuilding. In any case, however, speaking from my own experience in Anglesey, I say that £1,586 far exceeds what would be necessary for new farm houses and new buildings for three farms of the size of these. I have built a new house and buildings for a farm of 80 acres for £370, and others for farms under 40 acres for £280, so that £930 should have been sufficient for these three farms. But why did not the bishop wait until this incumbent disappeared in the course of nature? Why this precipitate haste, thereby incurring the accusation of tyranny, and of driving an old clergyman and his family into the workhouse? I should have thought that the Right Rev. Prelate would have wished to give some explanation with regard to these matters, but in reply to my inquiry when it would be convenient to his Lordship that I should put the Question—which has been for some time on the Minutes—he sent me a postcard to say he did not intend coming to London at present. I presume, therefore, that if he thinks any explanation necessary he will make it through the Press. I do not, however, believe that the undue pressure put upon the incumbent of Trefor Traian to induce him to resign his benefice is entirely owing to the Right Rev. Prelate. The diocesan officials, registrars, and surveyors are said to exercise too much influence—some say pressure—over the North Wales bishops, and I believe there are some similar cases on this side of the Dee. No good can be expected from these officials so long as they are paid by fees instead of by fixed salaries. This point was fully brought out before the Joint Committee; but no notice of this matter or of the question of dilapidations has been taken in the

  885
  Bill brought in by Mr. Hanbury. The best test of the cost of repairs of dilapidations is what builders of good repute state in their tenders. A greater number of respectable builders, instead of architects, ought to be appointed as surveyors. If there were a sufficient number of surveyors, the bishops could control them by not again nominating for a survey a surveyor against whom a just complaint has been proved. Ten or eleven dioceses have only one surveyor. St. Alban's and Southwell have six; Lichfield and Lincoln, five; York, Ely, Exeter, and Ripon, four; Bath and Wells, Carlisle, Norwich, and Peterborough, three; London, Winchester, Hereford, Newcastle, Durham, Rochester, St. David's, Salisbury, Truro, Wakefield, Worcester and Bangor, two each.
  I think that the right rev. prelate might have come here. I was told by a North Wales clergyman that he had recently made a voyage to Oporto. I must suppose that this was for the purpose of consulting Portuguese authorities on the treatment of clergy, and as to whether those lines of Camoen's do not apply even more to a bishop in his treatment of the clergy than to a commander in the field—
  "More stanzas had the siren in the praise
  Of the illustrious Albuquerque sung;
  But she remembers one harsh act, which weighs
  Him down, though through the world his fame be rung.
  A great commander (who to crop bright bays
  On precipitious cliffs his fate hath hung)
  Should to his men a comrade rather be
  Than a judge made up of severitie."
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know whether the noble Lord gave any notice of his intention to bring this matter before the House to the Bishop of St. Asaph, but he appears to be the only Member of your Lordships' House who would be at all likely to be able to give any information on the subject. Certainly I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the noble Lord has referred, and I do not believe it is within the functions of any member of the Government to have such knowledge. I understand that the proper course in cases of this description would be in the first instance to address the Bishop and invoke his assistance in the matter. Under certain contingencies
  886
  the subject might then come before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which case it might become the duty of some member of the Government to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case. At present, however, neither I nor any of my colleagues on this Bench can give the noble Lord any information on the matter. I see by the Paper that the noble Lord has given notice of his intention to move for Papers. I was not able very accurately to follow the observations of the noble Lord, but I rather gathered that his concluding remarks were in the nature of the recitation of a piece of poetry, and not a Motion for Papers. I do not know what the Papers are for which the noble Lord intended to move, but if he puts a Motion on the Paper we will see whether it would be possible to give them.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Duke for the reply he has given. I may say that I have written several times to the Bishop, but without effect.

  TEACHERS' CERTIFICATES.
  *LORD REAY, in rising "To ask the Lord President of the Council—
  1. When the Board of Education recognised the certificates issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute, mentioned in page 2 of their regulations, for the award of teachers' certificates in different branches of domestic economy, session 1902–1903, and whether any Papers on the subject will be communicated to Parliament.
  2. Whether the attention of the Board of Education has been directed to the serious reduction, in the qualifications required, from the standard now demanded for the limited diploma under the existing regulations dated March, 1902.
  3. Whether representations have been made by those engaged in the work of training teachers in domestic subjects, urging that the granting of the new certificates will unduly lower the standard desirable for this class of teachers, and whether the Lord President will further consider the expediency of lowering the standard hitherto required by the Board of Education,"

  887
  said: My Lords, the Code of Regulations for day schools imposes certain qualifications upon the teachers in regard to the subjects to which my Question alludes. The system of the Board of Education with regard to cookery is to grant, on examination, a full or a limited diploma; it also recognises certain training schools for cookery, and certain certificates for teaching cookery granted by recognised training schools. With regard to laundry work, the Board of Education does not itself undertake any examinations; it simply recognises training schools and the certificates granted by those recognised training schools. The list of institutions recognised by the Board of Education is given on page 44 of the Day School Code. That Day School Code is as recent as last Spring, and on that list of recognised institutions the City and Guilds of London Institute, to which I refer in my Question, does not appear. The regulations for the granting of cookery diplomas by the Board of Education are as recent as March of this year.]t was natural to suppose that the regulations contained in documents issued by the Board of Education in March last, and issued in the Day School Code, would not be disturbed. Contrary to this expectation, however, certificates to be awarded by the City and Guilds of London Institute have been recognised. Those certificates are three in number—the evening school teacher's certificate, the elementary day school teacher's certificate, and the teacher's diploma in domestic economy. A document issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute gives the conditions under which these certificates are granted, and there is a material difference between the conditions imposed by the City and Guilds of London Institute and those imposed by the Board of Education. I wish briefly to allude to the difference which exists in the two cases.
  As regards the elementary day school teacher's cookery certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute, the hours of instruction required in day or evening classes registered by the institute amount to 200, or 400 at a recognised training school. The qualification required for a cookery certificate
  888
  under the Board of Education is 840 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board. The difference, therefore, is very considerable. There is the further condition in the case of the City and Guilds of London Institute that evidence must be produced of having taught, or assisted in the teaching of, the subject for a period of not less than one year to the satisfaction of His Majesty's Inspector or the Inspector of the local authority; or the canditate must have received, as certified by the Principal, adequate instruction and practice in class teaching in a recognised training school. That, of course, does not entail any examination, and does not account for the difference of 400 and 840 hours training.
  With regard to laundry work, the City and Guilds of London Institute require for the elementary day school teacher's certificate 200 hours instruction in day or evening classes registered by the institute, or 400 hours instruction in a recognised training school, and there is the same proviso as in the case of cookery in regard to practice in teaching the subject. The difference here, again, is very material, as the Board of Education requires 512 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board.
  With regard to the diploma in house management, which is an entirely new expression—I suppose it is what has hitherto been called housewifery—the City and Guilds of London Institute's condition is that a separate certificate will not be issued, but candidates for the teacher's diploma in domestic economy, Group A, will be required to satisfy the examiners as to their knowledge of the subject. Again, the condition imposed by the Board of Education is much more stringent, viz., 250 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board, out of which time forty hours must have been spent in teaching classes of children.
  How does the matter stand with regard to the diploma for teaching all three subjects? The qualification of the City and Guilds of London Institute is fifty weeks of twenty hours a week—equal to 1,000 hours instruction—at a recognised training school for domestic economy, and to produce evidence of having

  889
  received, during training, adequate instruction and practice in class teaching, and to have passed the examination in hygiene, elementary stage, Section I, and to pass the examinations for the day school teacher's certificate in the subjects included under Group A or Group B; whereas the Board of Education requires l,573 hours training in a training school recognised by the Board, and the recognised diplomas of cookery and laundry work.
  I think I have shown that the result of the recognition given to the certificates of the City and Guilds of London Institute involves a reduction of the standard hitherto required — a standard which, I may say, was being gradually raised with very good results to those who were taught. I am anxious to know what has induced the Board of Education to make this change, and especially why the change has been made when what I may call the issue of the standing orders for the year—both in the Code and in the Regulations issued by the Board of Education—had led all those engaged in this department of educational work to think there would not be an invasion by another body into the circle of institutions recognised by the Board. I believe the Board of Education has received some complaints, which I think are very legitimate, from those whose teaching was organised with a view to satisfy more stringent requirements. I trust the noble Duke may find it possible to communicate some Papers with reference to the correspondence which has taken place between the Board of Education and the City and Guilds of London Institute on the subject.
  I must add that I have not alluded as yet to the evening school teachers certificate, mentioned on page 2 of the Regulations of the City and Guilds of London Institute. It is the most extraordinary part of the scheme. It appears to be the fact that it is proposed to issue this entirely new certificate. Hitherto, no separate "evening school teacher's certificate" was known. In these evening continuation schools we may pre-suppose a certain amount of previous knowledge acquired in the day schools by those frequenting them. The qualifications of the teachers should be higher, instead of which they are
  890
  lower. For this certificate all that is required is that a candidate should have passed in hygiene, elementary stage, Section 1, and produce evidence of having received, in the year preceding the examination, at least 100 hours instruction, including practical lessons, in a class registered by the institute. The alternative is to have regularly attended a course of instruction at a recognised training school. That means that a candidate could qualify for this certificate by spending 100 hours in a training school—that is to say, four or five weeks special instruction—besides passing in hygiene, elementary stage, Section 1. That seems to me to be not the least surprising result of this unexpected interference of the Board of Education with existing rules. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The City and Guilds of London Institute applied, in March last, for the recognition by the Board of Education of three classes of teachers' certificates proposed to be granted by the institute to teachers in certain branches of the subjects which are commonly known as "domestic economy." The certificates proposed for teachers in evening schools, and the teacher's diploma, so far as it related to teachers in secondary schools, presented no difficulty, and they were recognised by the Board of Education in April last; the recognition has been announced in the supplementary regulations for secondary day schools and for evening schools issued by the Board last month. The certificates for teachers in elementary day schools and "teacher's diploma" in the above named subjects taken in groups for teachers in those schools were the subject of some correspondence, and in the beginning of June the Board stated that they were able to "give a general approval to the regulations and examinations for certificates in the various branches of domestic economy proposed to be issued by the City and Guilds of London Institute," and that they were "prepared to recognise those certificates for the purpose of Article 101 (g), (h) and (m) of the Code." This recognition was announced in the regulations recently issued by the institute. At the same time the Board pointed out that it might be necessary to have further discussion as

  891
  to the details of the conditions of training and examination. With this object, a discussion took place about three weeks ago between Sir Philip Magnus and some of the officers of the Board, including the Inspectress of Cookery, at which a fear was expressed—which I think has been repeated by the noble Lord—that as the minimum number of hours training required by the institute was much lower than that required by the regulations of the Board, there would be a falling off in the standard of qualifications required in teachers of these subjects. To meet these objections, the institute drew up the instructions of 11th July, and in forwarding them to the Board of Education, Sir Philip Magnus said—
  "You will see from these instructions that it is by no means the intention of the institute to grant certificates on easier terms than those on which they have been hitherto obtainable from the Board. On the contrary, I think the examinations will be found more difficult. At the same time it has been the object of the institute to relax somewhat the regulations with respect to the distribution of the hours of instruction, and you will also note that the institute is desirous of throwing upon the Principal and the teachers more responsibility, and of relying upon their interest in their students' work to make the instruction as thorough as possible. Certainly in the future schools will not continue to be recognised unless the Principal can be trusted to organise the teaching on satisfactory lines.
  "Some misapprehension appears to have existed with regard to what is meant by the minimum number of hours to be devoted to instruction in any subject. You will see from the enclosed that it is certainly not intended that the institute's minimum should be taken as the school's maximum. The instructions will, I hope, show the importance which the institute attaches to the practising lessons to be given in the training school, and you will note that in no case can any candidate obtain a day teacher's certificate who does not produce adequate and satisfactory evidence of ability to teach."
  These statements appear to the Board to be satisfactory, as showing that the institute does not aim at any lowering of the standard; but before next year's regulations are issued by the institute and before any notifications of recognition of the certificates, so far as they relate to teachers in public elementary schools, is inserted in next year's Code, very careful consideration will be given to the question of the practical effect of these certificates, and of how far they have tended, or may tend, to alter the standard which the Board
  892
  consider necessary for teachers in these subjects. Representations have been received, and will doubtless continue to be received, from institutions carried on under the Board's regulations, and fears have been expressed which the Board at present consider to be groundless. I need not go into specific points, but I should like to observe that it does not appear to have been generally noticed that the instructions of July 11th lay down that the only schools recognised by the institute as affording the training necessary for these certificates should be those at present recognised by the Board of Education. I have, moreover, the authority of Sir Philip Magnus for saying that the institute are ready at any time to alter or amend any details in accordance with the wishes of the Board, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Board of Education will watch very carefully the practical working of the institute's scheme, and its effect on the teaching of these important subjects.
  At present the Board believe that, while substantially preserving the standard, the institute's certificate system is based on principles of elasticity and freedom which will re-act beneficially on the qualifications of these teachers.
  I hope the statement which I have obtained from the principal secretary for the secondary branch of education will substantially answer the Question of the noble Lord.
  I do not think that there would be any advantage in laying the correspondence on the subject upon the Table, as a great part of the negotiations, if I may call them so, have been carried on by means of interviews, without a knowledge of which the letters would not afford much information.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.