Page images

ample for legislation. Considering, too, the number of unsuccessful Bills which had been introduced during the last ten or fifteen years, most members were fully prepared to debate the question, and even to vote on it. He was of opinion that all the educational measure we needed might be obtained by an extension of the Privy Council system, and he preferred this to the complication of two systems, one of which must swallow up the other. But as one rigid mode of treatment would not meet the requirements of every part of the country, he suggested that a hybrid Bill might be introduced, applying the principles advocated by Mr. Melly to one or two large towns, and extending the police powers under the Industrial Schools Act, so that vagrant children might be sent to elementary day schools.

Mr. Buxton thought that the backwardness of education was owing, not to the failure of our machinery, but to the apathy of parents. He doubted whether it would be possible to enforce attendance in this country. Rather than adopt at once the system proposed by Mr. Fawcett, he preferred to try the experiment in one or two large towns, and make the present system as efficient as possible.

Lord Sandon supported the motion for a Committee, because the accounts of the condition of these destitute classes were so irreconcilable. He suggested that Commissioners should be sent to four or five of the largest towns.

Sir J. Pakington, disagreeing from Mr. Adderley, held that the present system had been tried long enough, and a bold and comprehensive national scheme was needed. Now that we had a strong Government, containing men who had shown themselves zealous friends of education, he confidently anticipated the question would be settled very early.

Mr. W. E. Forster concurred that the time had passed for Committees, and that we must at the earliest opportunity have a comprehensive measure, and he should be rejoiced to think with Mr. Adderley that an extension of the Revised Code would meet all our necessities, but notably the problem was how to change the present system into a national scheme without sacrificing the advantages of voluntary effort; and a very difficult one it was. In the first place, however strong might be the objections to voting State aid for religious education, no measure would be popular in the country which tended to check the teaching of religion, and if the schools were to be free it was clear that they must soon swallow up all the other schools. Again, though it was absurd to argue that compulsion was un-English, the working of the police machinery for compulsion would certainly be much opposed to English habits and feeling. The analogy of foreign countries, Mr. Forster pointed out, did not apply, for their Governments were more in the habit of interfering in the private life of their citizens than would be tolerated here ; and as to the precedent of New England, Mr. Forster told a story connected with the late Public

Schools Commission which showed that the compulsory law there had fallen so completely into desuetude that even Mr. Adams, the late American Minister, though actively engaged in education, did not know of its existence. There were difficulties, too, connected with the fluctuating state of public opinion, as he and Mr. Bruce had experienced in the management of their Bills. But difficult as it was, it was a business for the Government, and a Committee would not assist them. Anticipating Lord Sandon's suggestion, he stated that Government would institute inquiries into the educational condition of Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham.

Mr. Henley regretted that the inquiry was not to be conceded. Mr. Mundella referred to his experience in Germany and Switzerland, to show how little ground there was to apprehend that the magistrate and policeman would be needed to enforce attendance. The discussion then diverged into a controversy as to whether the greater amount of ignorance was to be found in town or in country districts. In the end, Mr. Melly withdrew his motion.

A measure which, unfortunately, was not carried to a successful end, was proposed by the Government at the beginning of the Session, for extending and improving the system of education in Scotland. The Duke of Argyll, who took charge of the measure, laid the Bill before the House of Lords on the 25th of February, making a statement of its provisions and object. It was proposed hereafter that the Board of Education for Scotland should consist of ten members—two elected by the conveners of counties, two by the borough interest, two by the Universities, one by the schoolmasters, and two (with a paid chairman) by the Crown. As the system of grants by the Privy Council had not worked satisfactorily, it was proposed to authorize the board to select such of the denominational schools as were really required for the education of the people, and to adopt them without causing them to be thrown upon the parochial rates. After a given date there would be no more denominational schools, but all would fall into the parochial system. It was further proposed to give the central board large powers over the school buildings, and a full power of dismissal with regard to parochial teachers, and as to the new code, it was intended to introduce several alterations. The system of payments by results would be preserved, but the payment would go to the rich as well as to the poor, and encouragement would be given to the higher branches of education. The schedule of the Bill described the mode in which the code would be carried out; but the main features were that it made no distinction between different classes of society, while it encouraged the highest standard of education which had bitherto prevailed in the parochial schools. It would not be required that the school inspectors should belong to any particular denomination, but the Bill recognized the principle of the conscience clause, and no public money would be granted except in accordance with that principle.

Upon the second reading being moved, several Peers suggested objections to the scheme. Lord Abinger disapproved of the imposition of additional charges upon the ratepayers.

The Earl of Airlie, in dealing with the assumption that a system of rating for schools discouraged voluntary exertion, contended that this was a fallacy, as the proportion of voluntary effort in Scotland, where rating was in force, clearly showed.

Lord Denbigh complained that the Bill had not taken sufficient care of the 300,000 Roman Catholics in Scotland, whose educational matters it left at the mercy of a despotic board, which might be exclusively Protestant. He hoped it would be so altered in Committee as to apply only to Presbyterians.

The Duke of Marlborough said the Bill, though really the Bill of the Royal Commissioners, ignored some of the most important of their recommendations. He doubted the accuracy of the statement that the Bill was satisfactory to the great body of the Scotch people.

The Duke of Argyll discussed seriatim Lord Abinger's and Lord Airlie's criticisms. He desired that all possible precautions might be taken to secure a sound elementary instruction in Scotland. The Duke of Marlborough had also misunderstood his views respecting denominational education. The general nature of the results of the proposed new system would, he anticipated, not differ materially from those of the existing one.

Lord Cairns pointed out a difficulty in the Bill arising from the powerlessness of that House to deal with the amount of the rates, or the persons to be authorized to levy them, and he was completely at a loss to understand the grounds of the Duke of Argyll's assertion of the general approval in Scotland itself of the proposed abolition of the existing system.

The Bill was read a second time without division, but before going into Committee,

The Duke of Richmond expressed his dissent from the Bill in its principles and its details, which from his unavoidable absence on the second reading he had been prevented from discussing. The change from the present system-a combination of the parochial and the voluntary with a rating system, which, he maintained, must abolish the voluntary system—would increase the burden. Nor had the necessity of a change been proved, as indeed appeared from the report of the Commission of which the Duke of Argyll had himself been chairman. He objected, moreover, to the maximum threepenny rate, which was, he considered, of the essence of the system, but which in many districts would not cover the expense of education. He denied that the feeling of Scotland was in favour of the Bill, which, providing a non-denominational system of education, would lead naturally, he feared, to secularism.

The Duke of Argyll refused to discuss the general principles of the Bill in its present stage, and pressed for going into Committee.

Lord Cairns thought the Duke of Argyll's original pledge, that


the Bill would be accepted by the various sections in Scotland as a compromise, had not been redeemed. At all events he argued that before going into Committee the House ought to have before it the statistics on which the Government had persuaded itself that a threepence-in-the-pound rate, on which the whole Bill turned, would be sufficient. Certainly in some parishes where the rate was most necessary it was proved that it would be inadequate; but he objected particularly to the objects of the Bill, which seemed to be to reduce all the Scotch schools to the level of the new National Schools in Scotland, and to the machinery for accomplishing this, which was one of reward and punishment.

In the Committee a prolonged discussion took place on an amendment moved by Lord Colonsay, and supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in favour of the retention of the denominational system. This amendment was strongly resisted by the Duke of Argyll, but it was carried against the Government by 68 to 23, and another amendment moved by the Duke of Marlborough, bearing in the same direction, was carried against the protest of the Government, but without a division.

On the conscience clause the Duke of Argyll again expressed his full conviction of the inexpediency of inserting such provisions, and repudiated all responsibility of the Government for them.

The Bill thus underwent considerable alteration at the hands of opponents from the shape in which it had been originally proposed. Though sent down to the House of Commons in good time, the pressure of other and more important business prevented it being proceeded with for many weeks, and August had arrived before time was found to entertain it. Mr. Bruce then announced that, in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, the Government had agreed to make certain concessions. One of the most important of these was that parochial schools should be excepted from the operation of the Bill. The proposed modifications did not, however, meet with a cordial acceptance. Much division of opinion was manifested among the Scotch Members, some of whom preferred to throw over the Bill rather than pass it in its existing form ; others urged the importance of not letting the Session go by without legislation. The management of the Government was severely criticized by Mr. Disraeli and his supporters, and serious complaint was made of the inconvenience of pressing important measures like this in the last days of the Session. Much time was consumed in these contentions over the details of the Bill, which was at last got through and returned to the Lords but a few days before the time fixed for the prorogation.

On the consideration of the amendments being moved on the 9th of August, Lord Redesdale moved an amendment deferring the consideration of them for three months. He described the repeated postponements which had attended the Bill in the House of Commons, strongly condemned the pro forma committal, whereby the measure sent down by their lordships had never been really submitted to the Lower House, and urged that the authority and independence of their lordships would be at an end if important Bills were forced upon their acceptance at the fag end of the Session.

The Duke of Argyll, in reply, contended that in consideration of the Bill having been first submitted to the Lords, of the urgent business which had retarded its progress in the Commons, and of the willingness of the Lower House to enter upon its consideration at so late a period of the session, their lordships were bound to proceed with the Bill. He attributed the pressure of business at the close of the session to the growing tendency of Governments to initiate important Bills in the other House, and, reviewing the amendments, he pointed out that the Commons had made considerable concessions to their lordships' views.

Earl Granville also urged that the amendments should be considered, which might well be done in a single sitting ; but on a division Lord Redesdale's amendment was carried by 55 to 43. The Bill thus fell to the ground.

The state of the English Episcopate was a subject which at this time attracted a good deal of public attention.

It bappened by a rather singular coincidence that several of the Bishops, especially those whose dioceses comprised the southern and western counties, were by age, or severe bodily infirmities, wholly or partially disabled from work. This was performed either by Archdeacons, or by retired colonial prelates, of which some happened to be in this country and capable of duty. But these imperfect and provisional arrangements were justly deemed unsatisfactory, and it was thought by many that even assuming unimpaired health and strength in all the occupants of the existing sees, the present episcopal force was unequal to the proper discharge of the functions of the office, especially in the larger and thickly-peopled dioceses. Of the latter opinion was Lord Lyttelton, who in former sessions had endeavoured, though without success, to procure the assent of Parliament to an increase of the Episcopate. His lordship again this year brought forward his measure, which he stated to be in its general effect the same which he had proposed on former occasions. He explained that by its provisions the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be empowered to frame schemes for the foundation of new sees, which, besides requiring the assent of the Queen in council, would have to be laid on the table of each House of Parliament. The incomes, which might be fixed at a minimum rate perhaps of 25001. a year, would be raised by voluntary contributions; for if people refused to pay for a Bishop, he was ready to admit that they probably did not deserve one.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, though he would not oppose the second reading, regretted he could not give the Bill a very hearty support. Three additional sees were certainly required, but not an indefinite increase in the Episcopate. If successful, the Bill

« PreviousContinue »