HC Deb 21 March 1860 vol 157 cc965-91

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. DILLWYN

, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill—the object of which was to open endowed schools to the children of Dissenters, and to enable Dissenters to act as trustees, in those cases where no intention was specifically expressed respecting the religious character of the trust, such as would make the application of his principle in direct opposition to the founder's wishes—said, he had carefully considered the objections which had been raised against a similar measure which he had introduced last Session, and which had received the assent of the majority of the House. That measure was sent to a Select Committee; but, to his great surprise, the Committee under the guidance of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns) introduced such Amendments as completely changed the principle of the Bill. He (Mr. Dillwyn) accordingly abandoned the charge of the Bill, and it dropped. The same Bill—or very nearly the same—was reintroduced in the House of Lords by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth) who approved generally of the principles he advocated. By their Lordships, however, the measure was contemptuously thrown overboard. Since last Session he (Mr. Dillwyn) had carefully considered the objections which were made to his Bill, with a view to meet his opponents as far as possible, and he believed the measure he now proposed would be found not liable to many of the charges which were formerly urged against it. In the meanwhile, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast had again proposed a Bill, which was substantially the same as his (Mr. Dillwyn's), as it had come out from the Committee of last year. The House of Lords had also sent down a measure of their own; and all three stood for the Second Reading that day. This was at least a proof of the great importance and great interest taken in the question. He considered that this last Bill, if it been carried as Lord Cranworth introduced it, would have been a material improvement in the law; but it had been greatly contracted in its operation, and though he did not say that still it was not calculated to do good, he contended it was a very homoeopathic remedy, and did not so much as touch the grievance of which he complained. That grievance was this—that, while Dissenters were admitted to the rights of citizens, they were excluded from the management of schools, which, so far as the intentions of the founders were expressed, were entirely Catholic and unsectarian. Lord Cranworth's Bill absolutely ignored the grievance. It made no mention whatever of the disqualification of Dis- senters to act as trustees. It merely took the matter out of the hands of the Court of Chancery, and gave power to church trustees, whose exclusive privileges were to be continued, to make such rules for the education of Dissenters' children as they might see fit. The Bill was very loosely worded; and he very much doubted whether better rules would not be got for these schools by reference to the Court of Chancery rather than to the trustees. He thought, in fact, it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Court of Chancery, merely making provision that the Court should not be governed by the precedents they now felt bound to follow in the decision of these cases. Then, as to the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, he should perhaps apologize for presuming to criticise the production of so eminent a Member, so acute a logician, and so experienced a Parliamentary tactician as the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, if he ventured to do so, it was because he felt the most perfect conviction that his own measure was preferable, sound in principle, and could not be controverted. He particularly objected to the 7th clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill, which adopted the principle of usage as giving an exclusive title to the schools proposed to be dealt with. It prescribed that in the case of any such schools where it had been for twenty-five years the practice to appoint Dissenters as trustees, they should not for the future be deemed ineligible as such. This sounds all very well; but inferentially the effect would be, that where it could be proved that those who had acted as trustees belonged to the Church of England, the schools would be handed over to the exclusive control of that Church, In fact, the operation of this clause would make the position of the Church of England much stronger than it was at present with regard to these endowed schools. The principle of allowing usage for a certain number of years to give a good title was all very well as applied to private rights, but altogether bad as regarded public rights. In this case it would operate as a usurpation—not using that word in an offensive sense—and would stamp schools founded for general national purposes with a narrow and sectarian character:—he (Mr. Dillwyn) held that for centuries past the Church had usurped rights in this matter that did not strictly or fairly belong to her. The Dissenters' Chapels Act had been quoted as justifying the principle of usage to give a title, of which Dissenters had taken advantage; but this case was not at all applicable in the present instance, where they had to deal with endowments, which were supposed to be made not for sectarian but for general purposes. The doctrine of usage which had sprung up in regard to Dissenters' chapels had sprung up against the law, and had been found to work beneficially, and the law only stepped in to legalize the principle so applied. The usage which had sprung up in the cases of endowed schools had sprung up under the law, and had worked badly as in the exclusion of Dissenters from their trusts, and he therefore sought to alter the law. He would now pass to the consideration of the special provisions of his own measure. The Bill, which he hoped the House would now read a second time, in the first place declared that of the endowed schools founded before the first Elizabeth, none should be deemed founded for religious instruction according to the Church of England, except such as might have been founded during the short reign of Edward VI.—and they were, for the most part, founded by the Crown from the spoils of the suppressed monasteries—the original wishes of the founders were rather for Roman Catholic instruction. He had no desire to touch any schools founded by private individuals expressly with the view to the promulgation and teaching of the doctrines of the Church of England. If it were wished he would specifically except such from the operation of his Bill; he did, however, desire that schools founded by the Crown should hold their endowments as national property, and for general purposes. The second clause was limited to schools founded subsequently to the 1st of Elizabeth, and before the passing of the Toleration Act; with- those founded after that date he did not interfere, as it had been urged with some force that since the passing of that Act Dissenters might, if they wished it, have founded schools for their own particular religious teaching. It had been stated as an objection to his former Bill that it might possibly ignore religious teaching in all the schools throughout the country; and in the third clause of the present Bill he therefore expressly provided that the religious teaching of any endowed school to which this Act applied should be determined by a majority of the trustees for the time being. He did not in any shape or form interfere with the mode in which these trustees should be appointed. All he did was to remove the disqualification so justly complained of in regard to the trustees; and that being removed as regarded trustees, he would also remove the disqualification as to schoolmasters, which the 4th clause provided for. This Bill was by no means intended as an attack on the Church of England, although it had been much opposed and many hard words used in regard to it by members of that body; but he did not, nevertheless, think that the Established Church had a right to exercise the exclusive control over the education of the people, or that it was expedient that they should be allowed to do so. It had been described as an attempted usurpation of property which belonged to the Church of England; but these endowments were the property of the public, and the nation had a right to deal with them through Parliament. The same power which gave the Church these endowments could undoubtedly resume them or alter the trusts on which they were held. The charge of usurpation could only be maintained on the ground that the Church had corporate rights for the beneficial use of its own members, and with which the nation at large had nothing to do, and had no right to interfere. He, however, maintained that this was not the case, but that the Church held her possessions, powers, and revenues only as a trustee for national purposes, to be used for the national welfare at the will of and according to the direction and judgment of the nation. The Church had not shown itself properly qualified to take the exclusive management of the education of the country. Assuming the population of England and Wales to be 15,000,000, it was calculated that there were only 5,000,000 who attended places of worship belonging to the Church of England; then there were 5,000,000 who were Dissenters and Roman Catholics, and 5,000,000 who went to no place of worship. Besides, there was a formidable schism in the Church itself which eminently disqualified it for this function. The Church was being torn to pieces by internal dissension, it was evident neither party was disposed to yield, and whichever party gained the upper hand it behaved the House not to leave the education of the nation under their exclusive control. He belonged to what, he supposed, would be called the Low Church, but it appeared to him the High Church party had the advantage in point of law, and they were likely to maintain the ascendancy, and it must also be evident to all, especially those who had read the debates in the Upper House of Convocation, that there was no disposition on the part of the Bishops and. High Church to make any material concessions as to discipline or teaching. On the other hand, there could be no doubt the overwhelming majority in the country were of the opposite way of thinking. As he had said, he was himself a member of the Low Church party; and, without meaning to speak offensively to those who differed from him, he felt that the doctrines of the Church of England, as taught by the High Church party, were not consistent with the spirit of Protestantism. He believed in the existence of a priesthood forming a privileged class, claiming to be possessed of some superior spiritual power apart from the rest of the community, and that this was not consistent with the spirit of Protestantism, which recognized the same spiritual rights in all men. In support of this opinion he quoted the case of Canon Wode-house, an eminent and respected divine of the Church of England, who, if he rightly understood his letter, which had lately appeared in the papers, had taken this view of the matter, and conceiving the claim put forth by the Church to confer superior spiritual power to be unjustifiable and dangerous has, rather than identify himself with it, or in any way sanction it, resigned the offices and preferments which he held in that Church. This Church, such as it is, however, claims to have, and, as he thought, under the law as it stands, soon would obtain, the entire and exclusive management of nearly all the great educational establishments throughout the country, and this he for one openly avowed he did not think it wise or right to entrust to it, both on account of the teaching and doctrine, which he thought dangerous, but which are gaining ground in its high places, and as he sincerely believed it to represent only a small minority of the whole nation. He disavowed any intention to attack the rights of the Church, the true danger to which arose from its own resistance to reform and to the prevalence of schism among its members.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a seoond time."

MR. LOWE

said, as this important subject had now become one of considerable complexity, it was only reasonable that at the earliest period some one should rise on behalf of the Government, in answer to the appeal that had been made to them, and state the course which they would respectfully advise the House to take in dealing with this Bill. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure had not stopped at the end of the very candid and moderate portion of his speech in which he explained and advocated its provisions; and he must entirely decline, in the discharge of his duty, to follow the hon. Member into a discussion of the doctrines, the general character, or the policy of maintaining the Church of England. This question might be decided in a manner satisfactory to the House and the country on principles totally free from topics of irritation and sectarian animosity; and he should endeavour with calmness and temper to state the reasons why this measure ought not to be allowed to pass a second reading. The hon. Member for Swansea had laid down with great fairness the principles which might guide them in judging of his own Bill. The preamble itself stated that it was expedient to amend the law relating to the Government and religious teaching of many endowed schools and educational charities, so that the same should, unless otherwise intended by the founders, be open to all subjects of the realm without distinction. Now, he was quite willing to adopt that principle, and to say that those schools should be opened as widely' as possible, subject only to the observance of the will of their founders. The hon. Gentleman further disclaimed any desire to touch the property which really belonged to the Church of England. Taking these two principles, then, to guide them, they might arrive at a sound conclusion as to this measure. Controversies respecting the religious intsrution of endowed schools had been often brought before the Courts of Equity; and the rule adopted by those tribunals had been, not to find out what might be recommended as best for the general policy of the country, or for the particular religious persuasion of the Judges or of the Government of the day, but to ascertain in the best manner they could what was the intention of the founders. For this purpose they perused the instrument of foundation, and where the will of the founder was expressly declared, whether in favour of the Established Church, as happened in some cases, or in favour of some Dissenting body, as in the case of Lady Hewley's charity, the Courts had not hesitated to give effect to it. But in the majority of instances the intention of the founders was not expressed, and then the Courts of Equity had acted in a way which seemed both reasonable and judicious. They assumed, and most justly, that the man who left money for educational purposes, particularly in the ages preceding the reign of Charles I., did not mean, any more than we should, to exclude that most important part of education, religion; and therefore they endeavoured to determine what that religion should be. That presumption in favour of religious teaching had, of course, been greatly strengthened when they found, as they frequently did, words implying that the children were to be educated in "the fear of God," in "a godly manner," or "by godly and discreet persons." The next question that had arisen was, what the religious teaching in the schools should be, and there again the Courts had carefully availed themselves of all the light afforded by the instrument of foundation. In many cases they found that the Bishop of the diocese was the visitor of the school; in others, that the Bishop or some of his subordinates had a power of regulation over it; and in others, again, that the schoolmaster was to be a member of the Church of England. In these instances there was no difficulty in deciding, on reasonable grounds, that it was the founder's intention that the school should belong to the Church of England. When, however, these criteria were wanting, the Courts had looked to the date at which the school was founded, and the state of legislation and opinion in the country at that time, not in order to see what the schools ought to have been, but what, according to the best evidence before them, they could infer that the founder intended they should be. Therefore they had held that schools founded by the first Protestant Kings—by Edward VI., for example—for instruction in "godly learning," and so forth, were designed to give education in the doctrines of the Church of which that Monarch was the head, and was known to be the most devoted supporter, and which in his day was the only legal Church that could exist in these realms. In regard to the schools founded in later times, they had also construed monuments of foundation in the same way, not at all, as he thought, with the view of giving the Church of England what was not her own, but merely as guides and means to ascertain what were the founders' intentions. He yielded to no man in his hearty and steadfast attachment to the principles of toleration, but he should not be serving the cause of religious liberty, or any liberty at all, if he were to denounce the line of proceeding thus followed by the Courts of Equity—a course at once reasonable, sensible, and moderate, and every way worthy of the great and enlightened Judges by whom it had been adopted. Had those tribunals fastened on particular expressions in the deeds of foundation, giving them an arbitrary construction of their own, not based on the common use of language, or on good sense,—had they excluded from their view what any man of sound judgment would take into consideration—namely, the collateral circumstances of the time in which the instrument was executed, they would have been rightly accused of discharging their duty ill. But having availed themselves of all the sources of information open to them, and come to a conclusion which, allowing for human fallibility, had almost universally conformed to the will of the founders, however much some might regret that conclusion, the Courts could neither be blamed for it, nor in consistency with the preamble of that Bill, which expressly avowed respect for the founders' intentions, ought the House to abrogate their decision, on the ground that it was not based on sound principles. Now, a measure on this subject was introduced last Session by the hon. Member for Swansea, and was referred to a Select Committee. Of that Committee he had himself the honour to be a Member. The effect of that Bill was this—that the religious teaching in endowed schools should not be exclusively that of the Church of England; while it did not state what that teaching should be. It was found difficult to interpret this, and gather what was really meant. But that difficulty, if not removed, was entirely superseded by the second clause, which provided that the will of the founder should be respected. The second part of the Bill, in fact, wholly overrode and neutralized the first; because these schools having one and all been adjudged Church of England schools on the ground that it was the intention of the founders that they should be so, the clause, setting up for the future a rule in no way different from that which had hitherto guided the Courts in thei decisions, necessarily swept away the basis laid by the other provisions of the measure. Another hon. Member (Sir Hugh Cairns), however, much to his credit for liberality, came to the rescue of the Committee and proposed a Bill to them like one of the measures which appeared on that day's Votes, and the Bill introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Cranworth, founded on the proposal of Sir Hugh Cairns, had now come down in the shape of the Endowed Schools (No. 3) Bill. Now, the grievances out of which this controversy had arisen were two in number; one of them exceedingly serious; the other, while it involved no substantial injury, naturally caused some irritated feeling. It had been conceived by no less an authority than Lord St. Leonards—who also deserved great praise for his liberality of sentiment—that it would be lawful for the Courts of Equity to add what were called "conscience clauses" to the instruments of foundation for endowed schools—that is, clauses by which the children of Dissenters might be admitted to secular instruction without being required to conform to the worship or to learn the catechism of the Established Church. But the result of the matter, as stated by Lord Cranworth, and acquiesced in by all the other learned Lords in "another place," was, that the decision of Lord St. Leonards was virtually overruled, and it was held not to be in the power of the Court of Equity to exercise the salutary interference which was exercised under Lord St. Leonards in 1852. So that the school trustees, although, if they desired it, they might of their own motion show their tolerance towards the children of Dissenters by admitting them, yet if they refused to admit them, however great the emergency, there was no legal power of compelling them to do so. That was the first and great grievance. The second grievance arose out of the Ilminster case, where it had been the practice to appoint Dissenters as trustees of the school, and where for a long period no quarrel or difficulty ensued from their acting in that capacity. But at length an objection was taken to the appointment of a Dissenter, and the Lords Justices, reversing the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, decider1 that Dissenters could not be appointed trustees of Church of England schools. It certainly seems natural enough that they should not be allowed to act in that capacity; but the decision produced a strong feeling among the Dissenting body, because, though a Dissenter might not seem a person particularly suited to act as a trustee of a Church of England school, and though, as the hon. Member for Swansea stated last Session, unless the Dissenters had some share in the instruction given, they would not covet the office of trustee in schools to which Nonconformist children were not admitted, still their exclusion from that office was regarded as a badge of social inferiority, and not in consonance with the liberal notions of modern society. These were the two mischiefs which had to be remedied. But the manner in which the hon. Member for Swanswea sought to accomplish his object was open to much criticism. The provisions of his Bill were entirely different from anything that had been laid on the table before. Notwithstanding the hon. Member for Swansea's disclaimer, this measure would not only touch the property of the Church of England, and touch it in the most vital manner, but after establishing a most objectionable precedent it would entirely undo its own work and leave the Dissenters in a position very little better than they now occupied, and certainly not as good as the one they would be placed in by another Bill on the table. The hon. Gentleman's Bill made a division between two historical periods. The first clause applied to endowed schools founded before the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and the second clause to schools founded between that year and the passing of the Toleration Act in the first year of William and Mary. Beyond that period the measure did not attempt to go. Without cavilling about points of chronology, it was very important in this matter that the date of the Reformation should not be carried down to the first year of Elizabeth, so as to exclude the seven years of Edward VI.'s reign, because it was well known that the Reformed religion was the established creed of that period, and that the most valuable and wealthy foundations were established during that epoch, and if by altering that date they shut out these endowments from a particular class of considerations which were to be extended to schools founded after the Reformation, a most unfair ad vantage would be taken. The schools established before the first year of Elizabeth were to have no quarter given them, while those subsequently established were to be treated with a little more gentleness. The first clause dealt with two classes of schools, the first of which were originally Roman Catholic foundations, and afterwards transferred by Act of Parliament to the Church of England. It was now proposed that these endowments should be taken way from the Established Church, and handed over to whatever denomination the majority of the trustees might determine. That was hardly consistent with the hon. Gentleman's declaration that he did not mean to touch the property of the Church. If an Act of Parliament was not a title to property, what was? The Established Church held these schools, rightly or wrongly, by Act of Parliament. But the hon. Member went behind the Act of Parliament, and required them to look at the origin of these things. This property, it was said, was plundered from the Roman Catholics and transferred to the Church of England. That might be a question to be argued in foro conscientiœ; but here they had to deal with a legal title, and the Church of England certainly had no property to which she could show a clearer right than this. Moreover, if these endowments were to be resumed, it was not the Dissenters who could set up a claim to them. That claim ought rather to come from a different quarter. The second class of schools of which the clause would deprive the Church are the grammar schools of Edward VI., the founders of which undoubtedly intended to give religious education according to the tenets of the Church of England, the only Church then tolerated. The Church of England also held the schools of King Edward VI., by the very right which the hon. Gentleman admitted—namely, the intention of the founders, as declared by the decisions of the Courts of Equity. Next to an Act of Parliament there could be no better title to property than a tenure of 300 years, traced up to the will of the founder perfectly ascertained, and over and over again adjudicated upon on the principles of reason and common sense by the most enlightened Judges who had ever adorned the judgment seat. The second clause, applicable to schools established between the first year of Elizabeth and the first year of William and Mary, declared that these endowments should not be deemed to have been established to afford instruction according to the doctrines of the Church of England, unless it appeared from the language of the deed of endowment that such was the intention of the founder. Then followed these words, "And in ascertaining such intention no regard shall be paid to any decision of any Court of civil judicature pronounced before the passing of this Act and relating to religion or instruction." That was a provision of a very unusual character. Under its operation the intention of the founder must be sought solely in the language of the deed of endowment. Now, the 23rd of Elizabeth required all schoolmasters to attend the services of the Church of England. Supposing after that Act a man had founded a school without expressly saying that the master should belong to the Church of England, would it be just to declare that if a Court had decided, on no narrow and technical grounds, but on the widest common sense, that the founder's intention was that the schoolmaster should be a member of the Established Church, no notice whatever should be taken of that circumstance? Was it to be hold that, with such an enactment in operation, the founder did mean that his institution was not to be in connection with the Church merely because he had not thought it necessary to make any special allusion to that subject? Were they to exclude all the light and evidence by which the best lawyers, from the days of the great Lord Ellesmere downwards, had been guided in discerning the intention of founders? What would that be but to wilfully blind their eyes, and wantonly throw away the spectacles by which alone they could discover that intention? Thus this Bill asked them not only to take from the Church that to which she could show the best of titles, but to deprive themselves and all future Judges of the accumulated learning and wisdom of ages. The two clauses of the Bill amounted to this—that under the pretence of carrying out more exactly the will of the founders, they would deprive the Church of England of all the rights she now possessed in these schools, whether founded upon Acts of Parliament, upon prescription, or upon judicial decision. When they had given this great shock to the institutions of the country, what did they do next? The majority of the school trustees for the time being were, by the third clause, to determine the nature and extent of the religious teaching. Now, these charities were almost universally in the hands of members of the Church of England, who would infallibly adhere, after the passing of this measure, to the existing system of instruction. If a majority of the trustees were henceforth to decide virtually whether the school should continue or cease to belong to the Established Church, would it be possible ever again to induce any board of trustees, who were self-elected, to appoint a Dissenter to a vacancy in their body? When it was seen that the prescription of 300 years might be overthrown, and that even the barest majority of the trustees might put an end to the teaching according to the tenets of the Established Church, it would become a maxim with trustees never to introduce a man of whom they were not absolutely sure. So that if this Bill passed it would operate practically as a ban upon Dissenters holding any office whatever connected with these schools. For these reasons he thought the House ought not to assent to the second reading. He would remind the House that another Bill had been sent down from the other House, which substantially required school trustees to make provision for the children of Dissenters without interference with their religious belief. That Bill had the sanction of the right rev. Bench, and was a considerable exemplification of the fair and tolerant spirit in which they were disposed to deal with this question. With the framing of that measure he had had nothing to do, but, if passed, he should look upon it as a kind of Magna Charta of education, laying down principles not only most valuable in themselves, but calculated to be a guide in all future controversies on this subject. Unfortunately, however, that Bill had no clause permitting Dissenters to act as trustees. That point was, indeed, not overlooked in the measure of the hon. Member for Swansea; but it was there mixed up with the other matters of enormous consequence and most questionable expediency to which he had just referred. It was, therefore, to be hoped that some hon. Gentleman would bring in a measure dealing separately with that part of the question. The Bill approved by the House of Lords was marked by great good sense. It did not run counter to the will of the founders, but, accepting it as interpreted by the Courts, it nevertheless said that if there was nothing to show that the founder meant to exclude from the secular benefits of the school the children of Dissenters, the instrument of foundation ought not to be nicely or curiously strained to their prejudice. That was a wise and tolerant mode of reconciling existing exigencies with a due regard to the will of the beneficent founders of these institutions. As the present Bill conformed neither to its own preamble nor to the candid and fair speech of the hon. Mover, and seeing that, instead of remedying the grievances of which Dissenters had a right to complain, it really put them aside to raise questions of infinite danger and importance, and tended to excite angry passions and endless disputes, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw his measure, and allow the House to deal with this question on principles which, though not aiming at anything so unspeakably important as the transfer from the Established Church of the property which it held on the most ancient and most indubitable tenure, were still commensurate to the just demands of all the interests involved.

MR. SELWYN

said, that the principles involved in this Bill were not only deeply interesting to his constituents but to the whole religious public. As the question appeared to him to be one which admitted of no compromise, and as he understood that the hon. Member who had charge of the measure declined to accede to the request which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the measure, he felt it his duty to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. The hon. Member for Swansea commenced his speech with great moderation; but it could not be denied that a spirit antagonistic to the Church had animated the framing of the Bill. It was essential to keep distinct two matters which had been mixed together in the Bill, and still more in the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, namely, first, the question upon what principles and by what rules of evidence you should decide to what Church, sect, or denomination an endowed school belongs; and, secondly, in what manner the school should be managed after that point had been decided. The first was a question which involved the rights of property not only in the Church of England, but in all religious and educational institutions; and with respect to the second, he appealed to the House whether it had not ever been the practice of the Church of England to extend the blessings of education to all classes. In the University which he had the honour to represent there existed no sectarian practice of exclusion; and at that very moment the son of a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, who possessed a seat in that House, was being educated at the University. With respect to the first question—upon what principles and rules of evidence the Courts should decide to what Church, sect, or denomination an endowed school belonged—it had been assumed on former occasions that there had been some difference of opinion among the Judges as to the principle to be laid down in dealing with endowed schools. But he (Mr. Selwyn), denied that there was any conflict of opinion whatever among Judges or lawyers. The rule, which would be disputed by no Member of the bar, from the Attorney General down to the gentleman who was just hoping for his first brief, and which was clearly laid down by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, in the course of the debate last year, was that the Court should first look to the instrument of foundation to see if the will of the founder was clearly expressed there, and if, as in most cases that came before the Courts, the language of that instrument was ambiguous, it should then consider the circumstances under which the instrument was executed and the usage which had since prevailed. Now, first, as regarded the original intention of the founder; secondly, as regarded the surrounding circumstances; and thirdly, as regarded subsequent usage, there were potent objections to the Bill, for it proposed to introduce one rule for one class of Her Majesty's subjects, and another rule for another class. It was but justice to the hon. Member for Swansea to say that he had repudiated such a notion, but no one who had read the Bill could fail to see that in fact it did establish one law for members of the Church of England and another law with reference to all other religious sects and denominations. He would not stop to point out the obvious inconvenience of establishing different laws with respect to different historical periods, and the litigation and expense which would inevitably arise from the adoption of such a system; but he might remind the House that they could not introduce different rules for the regulation of the endowed schools, and afterwards endeavour to establish a general rule for their regulation. But he might suggest that the real reason why the first year of the reign of Elizabeth had been selected as the date beyond which no attention was to be paid even to the language of the instruments creating these endowments was that it had been discovered, not by the hon. Member for Swansea, but by those who were the real authors of this Measure, that in the case of all the foundations by King Edward VI., which were the most valuable and most important in the country, the instruments of foundation contained clauses which attached the schools to the Church of England, and therefore it was necessary to seek to effect a change in the very terms of the foundations themselves, and consequently with regard to foundations established before the first year of the reign of Elizabeth the Bill proposed to reject not only the surrounding circumstances and usage, but even the instrument of foundation itself, as evidence of the intention of the founder; and this the hon. Member defended by a reference to the source from which was obtained the bulk of the property which was employed in endowments previous to the reign of that sovereign. Could any principle be imagined more dangerous to the rights of property than that, in the case of foundations established before the reign of Queen Elizabeth, you should examine into the sources from which the King or the private individual creating the endowment derived his property, and that if it came from the Roman Catholic Church the endowment should be thrown open to all classes? Such a principle would apply to the disposition by the King or by private individuals of all property which had been derived from the suppression of the religious foundations at the time of the Reformation. It was also urged that when these endowments were created there was but one Church; that they were, therefore, intended for the benefit of the whole population; that Parliament ought to legislate to carry into effect that intention, and that as the property was incapable of being divided it was right that it should be applied in a manner conformable to the existing state of things. If the hon. Gentleman did not intend to make one law for the Church and another for Dissent, let Dissenters consider to what the application of this principle to their own bodies would lead. The hon. Gentleman had talked about schisms in the Church of England. Were there no other religious bodies in which schisms were to be found? Were there not schisms among the Presbyterians, among the Wesleyans, among the Baptists, and among other Dissenting denominations, and, according to this principle, all the property acquired by those bodies before the occurrence of these schisms ought to have been divided between the two sections into which they were split, and to be re-divided and sub- divided as often as future schisms should occur. The application of this principle would be as dangerous to the foundations possessed by Dissenters as to those of the Church; and he did not believe that for the sake of the principle involved in this Bill any religious Dissenters would be willing to jeopardise their own educational institutions. The question before the House was, in truth, one between the friends of religious education, of whatever denomination, on the one side, and the political Dissenters on the other. The existing law most wisely said that you must look in the first place to the will of the founder; in the second to the surrounding circumstances and usage; and that law had been applied most impartially, and sometimes (as in the case of Lady Hewley's charities) to the loss of the Church, and to the signal benefit of Dissenters. The second section of the Bill, directing how endowments made subsequent to the first of Elizabeth were to be interpreted, was open to the same objection as the first—namely, that it established for the Church of England a rule of law which it was not intended to apply to the property of any other religious body. Having established one rule for the older institutions, they were to adopt another rule with respect to foundations established after the first year of the reign of Elizabeth. Here they were to take words of the founder in the instrument of foundation as their guide, and to exclude the surrounding circumstances and subsequent usage. He was quite at a loss to know how, if they acted on these principles they could avoid opening and disturbing many educational institutions which had always been managed in accordance with the known intentions of the founders, and which, according to the existing laws of toleration, must be thrown so entirely open as to render impracticable any religious education at all. Of the third clause, which gave to the majority of the trustees, for the time being, the power to decide upon the nature and extent of the religious teaching, he would only say that it would lead to perpetual contests, vexation, and annoyance, and would seriously detract from the value of these schools. He denied that there was any question of principle involved in the decision of the Ilminster case. That decision turned entirely upon a question of fact as to whether or not the trust for the repair of the roads and bridges was a principal and substantial part of the charity; and that question, and that only, was what the House of Lords had to decide upon the appeal which was now before them. The hon. Member for Swansea had exaggerated the differences which now existed in the Church of England; but if his views of those differences were a correct one, it would not justify the con-elusion which he drew from them. If the Church of England was in a failing condition, was that a reason why it should be deprived of this property? He would not repeat the objections to the Bill which had been so ably urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he entreated the House to consider on what principles the measure was founded, and how dangerous those principles were, not merely to the rights of property, but to the cause of religious education generally; and he asked all the friends of such education, both Churchmen and Dissenters, to pause before they supported a measure so opposed as this was to the rights of property and so injurious to real religious instruction.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now." and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. LONGFIELD

seconded the Amendment. His objection to the Bill was that it would disturb the rights of property, and create larger and greater evils than it intended to remedy. He would go as far as any Member of that House in removing grievances affecting Catholics and Dissenters, but he did not consider it a grievance that those bodies did not possess property which had belonged to the Church of England for 300 years, by repeated legislation and repeated judicial decisions. Nor did he consider it a grievance that the trustees should not profess any religion which whim or accident might dictate; nor that the decisions of wise and learned Judges should not be annulled. The Bill would inflict a far greater wrong than it professed to remedy. The Dissenters were, according to Mr. Morley's evidence, of opinion that Church property was national property, and ought to be dealt with according to the will of the nation. Were they really prepared to act upon this, and mould such property as they pleased, contrary to all prescription? By rules now in force the Courts of law had adopted certain decisions in order to carry out the wills of the founders; but this the advocates of the Bill thought an intolerable evil. He did not agree with those gentlemen, but thought, on the contrary, that the greatest hardship and confusion would arise from having no certain rules for their guidance in deciding upon the construction of those ancient instruments. In every clause of the Bill there was a distinct principle, and each was in his opinion most objectionable and most unworthy of the adoption of that House.

LORD FERMOY

said, that, although the speech of the Vice-President of the Council of Education (Mr. Lowe) might be a very able one, it was not a very Protestant speech; on the contrary, he thought it might be termed a Jesuitical speech. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in these cases they ought to recognize the original intention of the donors. Well, the right hon. Gentleman followed this rule very religiously as far back as to the reign of Edward VI., but when he got as far back as that, instead of continuing its application and showing, as according to it he must have done, that the bulk of the property of the Church of England ought to be restored to the Roman Catholics, the right hon. Gentleman took his stand upon the acts of the Legislature and the wisdom of Parliament. Well, if it was right in the reign of King Edward VI. to pass an Act of Parliament contravening the intentions of donors, why might they not in the reign of Queen Victoria pass an Act of Parliament contravening the intentions of donors since the reign of Edward VI.? Why might they not nowadays have regard to surrounding circumstances, and ask themselves what those donors would have done if they could have known that, after a lapse of 300 years, the Church of England would become more High Church, and approach the Church of Rome? Would they not, if they had, been actuated by good, sound, Low Church Protestant principles, and have thrown open the portals of the church to Dissenters? In the days of Papal aggression, who protected England against the attack made upon her? Why, not that miserable Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, but the good, sound, honest Protestant feeling of the Dissenters. The right hon. Gentleman must keep to either one principle or the other. He could not be allowed to blow hot and cold, in one case to say that he would go back to first principles, and in another to stand upon an Act of Parliament. He thought that the promoters of this Bill were acting for the interests of Protestantism in calling upon the House to pass a measure which would widen the portals of the Church, and therefore he should give it his hearty support.

MR. A. MILLS

expressed his regret that the hon. Member for Swansea had not adopted the suggestions of the Select Committee which sat upon this subject last year, and made them the basis of his Bill. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council had carried conviction with them, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to answer them. He felt there was a wrong which required a remedy. The Ilminster decision was a most unfortunate one, and he believed was not properly decided; it created a greater disposition to legislate in spirit adverse to the Church than had existed before. But he believed that the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast would meet every difficulty, remove the scruples of conscientious Dissenters, and open the endowed schools to all classes of the community. He should therefore vote for the Amendment.

MR. BAINES

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the object of the Bill now before the House was to deprive the Church of England of some large property which at present belonged to it. The hon. Member for Swansea was simply and solely endeavouring to extend the benefits of great and valuable institutions to the whole community. A great deal had been said of those principles of law and equity which having been acted upon for 300 years, ought to be held sacred; but the fact was that the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast proceeded upon the presumption that the dicta of our courts of law and equity were wrong, inasmuch as it provided that where Dissenters had been trustees of twenty-five years they should be confirmed in that privilege for all time to come. This was opposed to the doctrines of the courts of law, and in consequence of their decisions this Bill had become necessary. In the parish of Leeds there was an endowed school which was founded in 1677. There was no indication in the trust-deed that any religious instruction was intended to be given, or that the school was to be connected with any religious body. From the foundation of the school up to the present time Dissenters had been trustees along with Churchmen. It so happened that at the present moment there was only one trustee, and an application was about to be made for a new scheme. He understood, indeed, that a memorial had been presented to the Court of Chancery in favour of a new body of trustees, the whole of whom were Churchmen. That was not only contrary to usage, but in the circumstances of the locality, where the great majority of the inhabitants were Dissenters, it would operate as a great practical hardship. He admitted that the scheme in question would be defeated under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. That Bill, indeed, was a considerable step in the right direction, which was more than could be said of the measure that had come down from the House of Lords; but he thought that a full measure of justice would be obtained only by the passing of the Bill now before the House, declaring that all endowed schools which were not exclusively confined by the trust deeds to the Church of England should be thrown open to the entire community.

MR. ROEBUCK

wished to put a question to the Vice-President of the Education Committee, whose speech had afforded him uncommon delight, as well as produced a considerable impression upon his mind. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he wished Dissenters to be admitted as trustees of endowed schools, and the children of Dissenters to be allowed to participate in the advantages of those institutions. The right hon. Gentleman bad added that neither of those two objects would be attained under the Bill which had come down from the House of Lords. [Mr. LOWE: One will, the other will not.] He wanted to know whether, if a proposition should be made to introduce clauses carrying out both objects into the Bill from the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman would give it his support. If he received an affirmative answer he should vote against the present Bill; if not, he should vote for it.

MR. LOWE

said, it was not in his power to answer for the Government. For his own part he should be quite willing to support such clauses as those referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he should prefer in the interest of Dissenters themselves, that they should be brought forward in the shape of a separate Bill, and not sent up to the House of Lords as Amendments upon the measure which had come down from that House. The House of Lords had already struck one of the two clauses out of their Bill, and he was afraid that if the Bill were returned with that clause added to it the only result would be the loss of the other clause, to which he attached great value on account of its having received the unanimous assent of the Bench of Bishops.

MR. BEECROFT

said, his hon. Friend and Colleague had referred to the free school at Wortley, in the borough of Leeds. He had been requested by some of his constituents to put the House in possession of the facts of the case. The original number of trustees was five, and when two only were left they were to elect three new ones. At present only one trustee survived, and he could not fill up the trust except through the intervention of the Vice-Chancellor's Court. He had submitted the names of four highly eligible Churchmen for the approval of the Judge. The Dissenters, however, wanted the names of two of their co-religionists to be substituted; but the sole surviving trustee objected to this, because the school was endowed exclusively by Churchmen, and the inference was inevitable that the donors intended the management to be in the hands of Churchmen only. In confirmation of this view he would, with the permission of the House, read an extract relating to one of the benefactions. The donor, Langdale Sunderland, was thus de scribed:— He was captain of a troop of horse, in the service of King Charles I., and Oliver Cromwell's harpyes made him pay £878 to preserve his state from being plundered. Langdale Sunderland, of Aikton, Esq., headed and maintained 500 men at his own private expense, against the usurper Cromwell, whose men he drove into Pomfret Castle and harassed them many times, in which loyalty he actually spent £1,500 a year in supporting the just cause of King Charles I., without the least reward for himself or his progeny. He appealed to the House whether there could be a shadow of a doubt as to what were the intentions of this benefactor. He might observe that the children of Dissenters had hitherto been admitted to the school, and there was no desire whatever to disturb this arrangement.

MR. WALTER

said the junior Member for Leeds had assumed that the only object of the promoters of the present Bill was to extend to Dissenters the benefits of endowed schools, and that, consequently, those who opposed it were obviously disinclined to grant to Dissenters that which they were fairly and justly entitled to demand. That, he apprehended, was not a correct statement of the case; at all events, it did not accurately represent the view which he took of it. What he maintained was, not that Dissenters should be excluded from the advantages of endowed schools, but that they should not be allowed to control the religious management of them. He believed that Dissenters might obtain all the benefits to which they were fairly and equitably entitled without such a strong and sweeping measure as the present. The benefits to which Dissenters were entitled appeared to him to be, first, that their children should be allowed to attend endowed schools without being compelled to receive religious instruction to which they objected; and, secondly, that they should be admitted as joint trustees with Churchmen, as far as might be consistent with the religious teaching of the schools in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. But he could not agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, that because the founders of endowed schools did not do that which it would have been contrary to common sense that they should do,—namely, declare their schools to be Church of England schools, when they could not be otherwise—therefore Parliament should override the decisions of the Courts of law and alter the established character of the schools. Let the House consider for a moment how the principle laid down by the hon. Member would work. If men belonging to all religious denominations were permitted to act as trustees, with powers to determine not only the secular but the religious instruction to be given in the schools intrusted to their care, upon the principles embodied in the singular definition of Protestantism which had been given by the hon. Member for Swansea, he should like to know what kind of religious teaching would be provided. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had told the House how important it was that the portals of the Church of England should be widened so as to admit Dissenters, and had defended the present Bill expressly upon that ground. He (Mr. Walter) thought that the noble Lord in using that argument had put the cart before the horse. He had no objection, any more than the noble Lord, to open the portals of the Church; but until they were so opened, and until Dissenters were admitted to the Church itself, they ought not to be allowed to participate in the management of Church schools. He regarded the Bill in its present shape as the second of two serious attacks upon the Church. The first—he referred to the movement for the abolition of church rates —had been going on for some years; and he confessed that in consequence of the decision of the House of Lords in the Braintree case—a decision to which he paid more respect than the hon. Member for Swansea, and his friends seemed disposed to pay to the decisions of the Courts of law—he had felt it impossible to resist the Bill for the abolition of church rates. The present measure, as he had said, was the second serious attack upon the Church. It was acknowledged to be such by some Dissenters, and he had himself no doubt whatever as to its object. Probably the next attack would be made in the shape of a demand for a share of other property which the Church now exclusively enjoyed; and it was a question which Parliament ought well to consider, how the Church was to maintain an exclusive hold of its possessions in the event of any material change in its numerical proportion to the population. His own opinion was that in a very few years the question of Church and Dissent would assume the form to which he had alluded. How was it to be met and dealt with? Two modes might be suggested. One was a partition of the property of the Church, which he thought would be an injudicious and mischievous proceeding; the other, which he believed to be the better and more beneficial arrangement, was the adoption by the Church of some measure for conciliating a great number of persons who were at present in the position of Dissenters, not so much because they differed from the Church on points of doctrine, but because they differed from her with respect to some trifling matter of discipline or government. The statesman, whoever he might be, who should succeed in bringing about so happy a reconciliation would accomplish a greater and more beneficent work than almost any that had been achieved in the course of the present century.

MR. WHITESIDE

asked the hon. Member for Swansea whether he was prepared to exclude Ireland from the operation of his Bill? He concurred with the hon. Member for Berkshire in the hope that the differences between the Church and Dissent in England might soon cease to exist; and if those differences were, as the hon. Member said, confined to points of trifling importance, surely the sooner those who dissented from the Church on trifling grounds joined her communion the better.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he wished to address himself to those Gentlemen who represented dissenting interests, and to ask them whether this Bill had not been drawn to aid an object which most of them would disown—whether, taking advantage of their objection to the domination of the Church of England, there had not been principles introduced equally dangerous to the Dissenting bodies as they were to the Church of England? They might find a parallel in the history of a neighbouring country, if they looked to the Roman Catholic Church in France, and the proceedings of the Abbe Lamennais and Comte Montalembert. He warned the House that this Bill included principles which, he believed, were not agreeable even to the political Dissenters, and which were adverse to the opinion of religious Dissenters, who were willing to admit that the legitimate authority of the Church of England was a great bulwark of religious freedom in this country.

MR. DILLWYN

replied. He should have no objection, when the Bill got into Committee, to consider whether the Bill could be made applicable to Ireland. The hon. Member for Berkshire had made a statement about him and his friends which was perfectly unjustifiable, and even contrary to the rules of the House. It was that they did not seem disposed to pay respect to the law. The promoters of the present Bill wished to abide by the law, but the hon. Member ought to know that it was the duty of the House of Commons to alter laws. If the hon. Gentleman had understood his own position as a Member of the Legislature he would never have taunted any portion of his brother Members for endeavouring to discharge the first and most imperative duty they owed to their constituents and the country at large. The plan he proposed was in practical operation in several parts of the country, in Swansea for instance, and was found to be perfectly satisfactory. He distinguished between Church property, and property handed over to the Church in trust for certain general purposes; the former his Bill would not touch; the latter only he proposed to deal with in this measure. The question at issue was a large one, namely, whether the education of this country was to be handed over to one particular religious sect, embracing only one-third of its population. He would have no objection to refer back his first clause to the reign of Henry VIII., excepting in respect of schools founded by the Crown, which, he thought, ought in all cases to be devoted to national purposes. Schools, founded by private individuals, for special purposes, he did not propose to interfere with in any respect.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question:"

The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 190: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Jackson, W.
Agnew, Sir A. James, E.
Alcock, T. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Ayrton, A. S. Kershaw, J.
Bagwell, J. Kinglake, A. W.
Bailey, C. Knatchbull-Hugessen, E
Baines, E. Langton, W. H. G.
Ball, E. Lanigan, J.
Bass, M. T. Lawson, W.
Baxter, W. E. Leatham, E. A.
Bazley, T. Lee, W.
Beale, S. Lindsay, W. S.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Locke, Joseph
Biddulph, Colonel Lysley, W. J.
Biggs, J. Mackie, J.
Black, A. Martin, J.
Bright, J. Massey, W. N.
Bristow, A. R. Merry, J.
Brocklehurst, J. Monson, hon. W. J.
Browne, Lord J. T. Morris, D.
Bruce, H. A. Norris, J. T.
Buchanan, W. North, F.
Buller, Sir A. W. Onslow, G.
Butler, C. S. Padmore, R.
Byng, hon. G. Paget, C.
Caird, J. Paxton, Sir J.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Pease, H.
Carnegie, hon. C. Peto, Sir S. M.
Cavendish, hon. W. Pilkington, J.
Childers, H. C. E. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Clay, J. Pryse, E. L.
Clifford, C. C. Raynham, Visct.
Cobbett, J. M. Ricardo, J. L.
Coningham, W. Robartes, T. J. A.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Robertson, D.
Crook, J. Roebuck, J. A.
Dalglish, R. Russell, F. W.
Davey, R. Salt, Titus
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Scholefield, W.
Davie, Col. F. Seymour, Sir M.
Douglas, Sir C. Seymour, W. D.
Dunbar Sir W. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Duncombe, T. Smith, Augustus
Dunlop, A. M. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.
Ewart, W.
Ewart, J. C. Stacpoole, W.
Ewing, H. E. C. Staniland, M.
Gavin, Major Stanley, hon. W. O.
Gifford, Earl of Stansfeld, J.
Gilpin, C. Stuart, Col.
Goldsmid, Sir F. H. Taylor, H.
Greene, J. Tite, W.
Gregory, W. H. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Grenfell, C. P. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Hadfield, G. Turner, J. A.
Hanbury, R. Tynte, Col. K.
Hundley, J. Waldron, L.
Hardcastle, J. A. Watkins, Col. L.
Henley, Lord Westhead, J. P. B.
Whalley, G. H. TELLERS.
Wickham, H. W. Dillwyn, L. L.
Willcox, B. M'Ghie Fermoy, Lord
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Gray, Capt.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen. Griffith, C. D.
Astell, J. H. Grogan, Sir E.
Atherton, Sir W. Hamilton, Major
Baring, A. H. Hardy, G.
Bathurst, A. A. Hartington, Marq. of
Beach, W. W. B. Hassard, M.
Beaumont, W. B. Heneage, G. F.
Beecroft, G. S. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Beresford, rt. hon. W. Hennessy, J. P.
Bernard, hon. Col. Henniker, Lord
Blackburn, P. Herbert, Col. P.
Bond, J. W. M'G. Hervey, Lord A.
Botfield, B. Heygate, Sir F. W.
Brady, J. Hill, Lord E.
Bramston, T. W. Hill, hon. R. C.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Hood, Sir A. A.
Bruce, Major C. Hope, G. W.
Buckley, Gen. Hopwood, J. T.
Buller, J. W. Hornby, W. H.
Burghley, Lord Horsfall, T. B.
Cairns, Sir H. M'C. Hotham, Lord
Cartwright, Col. Howes, E.
Cave, S. Hubbard, J. G.
Cavendish, Lord G. Humberston, P. S.
Cayley, E. S. Hunt, G. W.
Churchill, Lord A. S. Ingestre, Visct.
Clifford, Col. Jermyn, Earl
Close, M. C. Jervis, Capt.
Cole, hon. H. Jones, D.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Kekewich, S. T.
Collins, T. Kendall, N.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Kennard, R. W.
Cross, R. A. King, J. K.
Cubitt, Mr. Alderman Knatchbull, W. F.
Cubitt, G. Knightley, R.
Dent, J. D. Knox, Col.
Dickson, Col. Lacon, Sir E.
Dodson, J. G. Langston, J. H.
Duncombe, hon. A. Lefroy, A.
Duncombe, hon. W. E. Legh, Major C.
Dunn, J. Legh, W. J.
Dunne, Col. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Du Pre, C. G. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Egerton, hon. A. F. Lockhart, A. E.
Egerton, E. C. Lovaine, Lord
Egerton, hon. W. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Estcourt, rt. hon. T. H. S. Lyall, G.
Lygon, hon. F.
Evans, T. W. Mainwaring, T.
Farquhar, Sir M. Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Farrer, J. March, Earl of
Filmer, Sir E. Miles, Sir W.
Finlay, A. S. Miller, T. J.
Forde, Col. Mills, A.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Mitford, W. T.
Foster, W. O. Montagu, Lord R.
Fortescue, hon. F.D. Montgomery, Sir G.
Gard, R. S. Mordaunt, Sir C.
Garnett, W. J. Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
George, J. Mundy, W.
Gladstone, Capt. Mure, D.
Gore, J. R. O. Murray, W.
Gore, W. R. O. Naas, Lord
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Newdegate, C. N.
Greaves, E. Nicol, W.
Greenall, G. Noel, hon. G. J.
North, Col Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Northcote, Sir S. H. Stracey, Sir H.
Pache, C. W. Taylor, Col.
Pakenham, Col. Thynne, Lord E.
Palmer, R. W. Thynne, Lord H.
Papillon, P. O. Torrens, R.
Parker, Major W. Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Patten, Col. W. Upton, hon. Gen.
Pevensey, Visct. Vance, J.
Philipps, J. H. Vandeleur, Col.
Potts, G. Vane, Lord H.
Powys, P. L. Vansittart, W.
Pritchard, J. Verner, Sir W.
Pugh, D. (Carmarthenshire) Verney, Sir H.
Vernon, L. V.
Puller, C. W. G. Walcott, Admiral
Richardson, J. Walker, J. R.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Rogers, J. J. Walter, J.
Sclater-Booth, G. Watlington, J. W. P.
Seymer, H. K. Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Shirley, E. P. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Sibthorp, Major Woodd, B. T.
Smith, Abel Wyndham, Sir H.
Smith, S. G. Wyndham, hon. H.
Smyth, Col. Wynn, Col.
Smollett, P. B. Wynne, C. G.
Somerset, Col.
Somes, J. TELLERS.
Spooner, R. Selwyn, C. J.
Stanhope, J. B. Longfield, R.

Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second reading put off for six months.