office than that of an Under Secretary of State, you have your pick of persons out of the Cabinet, and can command for that office the services of men of high official position to explain and defend the policy of the Department. I congratulate the noble Duke on the very easy life he will lead when this Department is taken from him; but the House of Commons will not, I think, be inclined to create a sixth Se and probably with some additional officers, whose only duty "at present"-because that was a term frequently used by the noble Duke-will be to turn the Minutes into an Act, thereby relieving himself of all trouble in that respect; to make certain concessions, which will also make it much easier to administer the Department; and to do with respect to the Conscience Clause what, once done, is done for ever. I am sure that you cannot create such an office as that of Secretary of State without bringing forward much more important measures for the promotion of education than are now proposed, and without meeting the demand which is now becoming so general throughout the country for a more extended and complete educational system. 1846. To do away with the necessity of a certificated teacher would destroy the efficiency of the school just at the very moment you wish to extend it. The change contemplated in this respect is one which I am afraid will tend to upset the present system. It is all very well for these people to get a grant and have a certificated master; but in these schools the temptation of a cheap school is very great; and without some condition of this sort estab-cretary of State, with an additional salary, lished by the Central Office you will have them getting rid of the certificated master, and engaging an inferior one. Your Lordships must bear in mind that the uncertificated master who has conducted a school successfully can apply to be examined, and he need only pass in such subjects as are absolutely necessary as proofs of competence. I think it is quite illusory to suppose that any little concession of this kind will have much effect in the country districts; and as to London and the large provincial towns, it will produce no effect whatever, while it gives no initiative, which is the great vice of the present system. With regard to the proposed appointment of a Secretary of State, I know there has been a general cry for such an appointment; but I think there has been some misapprehension on this score. Objections have been made that there is no responsibility at present, and that the Education Department is administered by the Committee of Council, and not by the President of the Council. This is all a mistake. I am sure that the noble Duke considers himself responsible for the Department of Education, and that he administers the office by the help of the Vice President. I am sure that he only calls the Council together on those sorts of oc casion when a Minister would call the Cabinet together, and a Committee of the Cabinet would be appointed to consider subjects of detail. You, therefore, have an advantage in being able to take this advice. At least I know that, having administered the office of President for a long time, I felt it an advantage to be able to consult at times the first-rate men who were in the Department, and a man of great genius who acted as Vice President. There is a confusion, I think, in the public mind as to the place where the responsibility really rests. It is impossible, of course, that the Vice President should not share the responsibility. But that is a real advantage in the system, because, having at your disposal a somewhat higher EARL RUSSELL: I have a few words to add before this debate closes. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) has expressed his gratitude to the noble Duke for introducing this Bill into the House of Lords. I wish also to express my thanks to the noble Duke for avoiding a danger which he himself has pointed out. He said that there is great danger in making mistakes with regard to education, and that, by taking a false step, we might do much more harm to education in this country than we could do by taking a step of admitted wisdom. I am glad to see that, speaking generally, the noble Duke has avoided any false steps upon this subject. The system which now exists is one which I have always watched with great interest from the time when Lord Lansdowne introduced it in 1839.40, and afterwards, when it was extended and improved. The view which Lord Lansdowne took of the subject—and it was at the time a just view-was first to improve the quality of the education, thinking that the quantity might be increased afterwards. Three or four measures were brought forward with this object. One was that Inspectors should be appointed, men of literary talent and of excellent education men who were likely, by communication with the clergy and laity, to improve the character of the schools throughout the country. Another measure provided for the training of pupil teachers, who might afterwards become schoolmasters; and the third provided for the appointment of certificated masters, thereby furnishing the country with a great number of competent schoolmasters. These were great measures, and I am sorry to see that the number of pupil teachers has greatly decreased of late years, so that the efficiency of the system has been impaired. That seems to me an additional reason why the House should agree with my noble Friend that it is not desirable to stereotype all the regulations of the Committee of Council. If you think it proper to appoint a Minister of Education you should give him the power of altering the Minutes from time to time; and I say this because, although I think that the Revised Code effected great good, I feel that the diminution of the pupil teachers was a very great evil, and that means should be taken to raise them to their former number. There is another question upon which the whole country takes an interest, and that is the question of rating in districts where schools are deficient. I think that without some machinery for levying rates our educational system never could be complete. There are two reasons why the system is not adequate to supply the wants of many parts of the country. One is the poverty and inability of the people; the other is the unwillingness and the apathy of the people. I observe that Mr. Norris, a most competent Inspector, who has had great experience, when asked before a Committee of the other House what is the reason why in certain districts there are no schools? answered that it is on account of the unwillingness and apathy which prevail among the people there on the subject of education. If that is the case, the question naturally occurs-How are we to remedy that evil? It would not be right for the State to give an increased grant in such instances, because that would be to give an advantage to persons who were unwilling and indifferent. For my own part, I see no other course than that of imposing a rate in such districts by the authority of Parliament. I certainly contemplated that a Minister of Education might be appointed at the same time as you established a system of rates; and, though the noble Duke has rather put the cart before the horse in creating a Minister of Education first, I trust that this Minister, taking, as he must, a great interest in the subject, and surveying the whole state of the country, will be the cause of the introduction of a system of rates into this Bill. I think that even in the present year we might empower boroughs, if they thought fit, to impose an education rate. By-and-by we might make another step in that direction; but even now, if such towns as Manchester and Birmingham were willing to take this course, they should be empowered to do so. This matter of primary education is one of the greatest importance; and I own I am very much struck with a declaration made by a gentleman who was at the head of an educational association at Birmingham, who thus ends his Report "The general conclusions to which these facts seem to lead are, that we need some far more comprehensive measure than we at present possess, in order not only to bring all children into school, but to make them attend with regularity, and remain after they have learnt the arts of become accustomed to the use of them as instrureading, writing, and ciphering-long enough to ments of self-culture. . . At present they are not prepared for a step in advance. Most of them have as yet no footing, and I fear that it will be in vain to form them into classes for the study of special higher subjects. The lecture is but the handmaid to the treatise, the class-room (except for drawing) is but the ante-room to the study; and technical instruction will make but until they are better prepared for it by a more little way amongst the artizans of this country thorough system of primary education.' This is a fact which lies at the foundation of the whole matter. If you have classes for technical education and classes for higher instruction, and those who go to them have not been well grounded in primary education, in reading, writing, and arithmetic, you will find that technical education will make no progress. That being the important part of the matter, I cannot but wish that such towns as Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester should have powers to rate themselves. noble Duke accused me of having a party object when I stated my views on a previous occasion. I can assure the noble Duke I wish rather to help him in passing this Bill than to put obstacles in his way. I am glad that he has at least taken a step in advance, which will be for the public benefit, and I can only hope that it will lead to something better hereafter. The THE EARL OF CORK, with due deference to the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville), ventured to think that hardly any portion of the noble Duke's statement would be received with greater pleasure by the country than that which related to the admission of schools to inspection, whether the principal teachers were certificated or not. This would be the case more particularly in the West of England, where there were a number of small parishes the clergymen of which took the greatest interest in education, and in many cases defrayed the expense of it out of their own pockets. THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, he also approved the proposal that schools need not necessarily be conducted by certificated teachers, referring to remarkable instances within his own experience, in which the relaxation of the present rule would be followed by beneficial results in securing assistance to schools that depended too largely on the exertions of the clergyman. As to apathy in the matter of education, much had been done already that would tend to diminish it, and we must wait for the full effect of it. He be lieved the measure of last year would have an immense effect. EARL GRANVILLE said, it would not provide schools. THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, that indirectly it would stimulate people to provide schools where they did not exist. Employers of labour, when they found difficulty in availing themselves of the labour of children because they were not educated, would find the means to educate them. He hoped the arrangement suggested with regard to the Conscience Clause would have a soothing and conciliatory effect, and that it would tend to show the groundlessness of the alarm manifested by some of the clergy. Under what was called Mr. Denison's Act, permanent power was given to guardians to pay for the schooling of children of out-door paupers. He would suggest that that provision should be made compulsory, and he was told that if it were 1,600 outcasts would be removed from the streets of Birmingham. In this way much of what was sought by compulsory education might be accomplished, and the streets relieved of spectacles that offended the moral sense. In conclusion, the noble Earl was understood to say that nothing was proposed that would reach the uncared-for children of the dense Irish populations in our larger towns. THE BISHOP OF LONDON said, that reference had been made to Returns as to the state of education in his diocese, which were of a most appalling character, and which would lead to the belief that apathy was by no means confined to the rural districts, but that it existed to a large extent in this metropolis. He must express his thanks to the noble Duke for the way in which he had dealt with the difficulty of the Conscience Clause. He could affirm from his own experience that the noble Duke would find that on that subject the clergy were extremely reasonable. It was true, however, that there was a small body of clergy who were not very reasonable in their demands; but he believed they were in a minority, and were by no means so important as their declamation would lead some to believe. In reply to Earl GRANVILLE, THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH said, he proposed to take the second reading of the Bill after the holidays; but at present he was unable to name the exact day. Motion agreed to. A Bill to regulate the Distribution of Sums granted by Parliament for Elementary Education in England and Wales-Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a. (No. 53.) POOR RELIEF BILL [H.L.]-(No. 39.) (The Earl of Devon.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF DEVON said, he was quite prepared to place before the House the reasons which justified the various clauses which he had introduced into this Bill; but, looking at the great importance of the measure and the variety of its provisions, he thought it would perhaps be more convenient if the House would now read it a second time, and allow him to explain its provisions on going into Committee. He would therefore simply move the second reading of the Bill. Motion agreed to: Bill read 2 (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next. House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock, HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, March 24, 1868. MINUTES.]--SELECT COMMITTEE-On Scientific MATES. Resolutions [March 23] reported. might raise the question of public advantage, and, in order to secure fairness in raising the issue, provision should be made. for payment of costs in the case of illusory, vexatious, or unwarranted opposition. Companies, however, had affixed to the Standing Order the interpretation that they should be allowed to object to proposed new works, on the ground that their pri WAYS AND MEANS-Resolution [March 23] re-vate interests would be interfered with, ported-Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000). PUBLIC BILLS Ordered- Investment of Trust Funds Act Amendment * ; Revenue Officers Disabilities Removal; Boroughs and Divisions of Counties; Mutiny; Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000).* First Reading-Mutiny; Consolidated Fund Third Reading-Compulsory Church Rates Abo- PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. STANDING ORDER 131. Order for Consideration of Standing Order 131 (Competition to be a ground of locus standi) (by Order), read. and having gained admission to be heard on that ground they naturally claimed that Parliament recognized in them a Vested right, more or less absolute, to the monopoly of the district in which their works were situated. He did not believe that Parliament ever had recognized such a right, and as, under the present state of things, investors were led to indulge in hopes of protection which were constantly disappointed, he thought an Order which was liable to this misconstruction ought not to be maintained. The effect of its repeal would be that companies sanctioned. by special Act of Parliament would return to the position in which they stood before 1853, and would be in the same position as companies incorporated under the JointStock Acts, which were not allowed to oppose each other on the ground of competition. To this day, docks, although specially sanctioned by Parliament, were not heard in opposition to each other, and MR. DODSON said, that having gone why should railways, or any other works? into this subject very fully not long ago, It might be said that companies incorpoit was not his intention to trouble the rated by special Acts of Parliament were House at any length on the present occa- subjected to special conditions, but then it sion. His object was to elicit as far as was in return for special privileges granted. he could arguments from hon. Gentlemen It might be a fair question to consider, with regard to the difficult question of whether the conditions imposed were not the allowance of opposition to Private in some cases too onerous in proportion to Bills on the ground of competition. The the privileges? He thought himself that Standing Order 131 was capable of two the restrictions on the financial operations different constructions. It might be taken of companies, sanctioned by special Acts, to mean that the proprietors of existing especially of railway companies, were unworks might be admitted before Commit- necessarily onerous, and were often intees to argue that the proposed new works jurious to the companies, without being were not required for the public advan-attended with benefit to the public. tage; or, without denying that the works of these attempted restrictions, perhaps all were for the public advantage, that they of them, like the old usury laws, broke might be allowed to oppose the construc- down when put to the test; for it was tion of the new works on the ground impossible for Parliament to control the that those works would interfere with money market and the exigencies of lenders their private interests. The Report of Mr. and borrowers. Cardwell's Committee on Railway and Canal Bills in 1853, upon which the Order was based, merely recommended that in contested cases careful arrangements should be made by which established railway companies and municipal or other public bodies Most He believed it would be best to revert to the old law of Parliament, and not to allow one company to oppose another except in case of interference with its works. He was not contemplating, however, by his present proposition to withdraw from companies sanctioned by special Acts the concession intended for on this Order, which he now sought to them in 1853; therefore, in proposing the repeal. If this were so, he would leave repeal of the ambiguous Standing Order the House to draw their own inference as 131, he would substitute for it a new to the views which existing companies Standing Order, rendering it competent held with regard to that Order. In 1862, to the Referees on Private Bills, if they 1863, and 1864, when Railway Bills were thought fit, to admit the proprietors of more than ordinary rampant, and when no existing works to be heard upon their pe- less than 852 Bills were deposited, only tition against any Private Bill relating to 478 actually passed. The railway comsimilar works within a town or district panies then had succeeded to a very large served by them, on the ground of the ab- extent in their opposition, and entirely on sence of public advantage. It might be the ground of this particular Standing said that the words "public advantage' Order now sought to be repealed. But were rather vague; but he thought that this was not all. In 1865, 1866, and his proposition would have an incalculable 1867, when Private Bill legislation, owing advantage over the present more indefinite to the financial condition of the country, Standing Order, inasmuch as it would was not carried to the same extent, the plainly declare that the public advantage same relative results followed as in the would be the paramount consideration. In previous period to which he had referred. order to form a judgment as to how far The hon. Gentleman told them, on the last the permission to be heard on the ground occasion when this subject was before the of their private interests being interfered House, that railway directors were conwith was of value to existing companies, scious of the want of success which had he would refer the House to the evidence attended their efforts when seeking to of Mr. Blenkinsop, solicitor to the London avail themselves of this Standing Order. and North Western Railway Company, He must say that his own experience as who stated before a Committee that the a railway director for twenty years was Standing Order 131 had not been pro- wholly opposed to such a statement. Many ductive of fruitful results, and that ge- millions of needless outlay had been prenerally speaking the feeling of Commit- vented by railway companies by virtue of tees was to sanction competing schemes. this very Order. The hon. Gentleman According to the best Returns, the com- knew that during the last fortnight a panies established under the present sys- deputation had waited on the Minister, tem had, within the last fifteen years, ex- representing the whole railway interest pended £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 in from the English Channel to the Tweed, legal and Parliamentary proceedings. Cap- and more than one-half of the capital tain Huish, manager of the London and of the existing railways representing North Western Railway Company, and £250,000,000 of capital; and what was other witnesses also gave evidence as to he told by that deputation? Why, that the delusive character of the present Stand- they looked on the repeal of this Standing ing Order. He thought the House ought Order with the greatest possible anxiety not to retain a Standing Order, the terms and alarm. He now repeated that stateof which led people to suppose that Parliament as a railway director, and he knew ment was likely to reject a proposed work he spoke the feelings of thousands whose of public utility simply because it might appear to interfere with private interests. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Order 131 be repealed. -(Mr. Dodson.) MR. LEEMAN, from his experience of Private Bill legislation, was opposed to the alteration of the Standing Order in the manner now proposed. During the exist ence of the Standing Order in question, hundreds of millions of pounds sterling had been invested in public works in this country. The hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that fully one-half of the opposition in Committee-rooms was based capital was invested in railways. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bills thrown out during the period to which he had referred were not thrown out on the ground of competition; yet he admitted that fully one-half of the opposition to new schemes was based on this Standing Order, and the railway companies had no other right to be heard against them. Was it too much to ask that the large interests which Parliament had itself sanctioned and encouraged-he did not say protected, for the object of the railway companies was not protection should be permitted to set up their own case, if the Referees or the tribunal to which a particular Bill might |