Commons Sitting of 14 June 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* [136].
Committee—Contagious Diseases(Animals) (No.2) (re-commt.) * [103]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Endowed Schools (re-comm.) [115–163].
Considered as amended—Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Supplemental* [146]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [157].
Third Reading—Exchequer Bonds (£2,300,000) * [152]; Sea Fisheries Act(1868) Supplemental* [146]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [157]; Titles of Religious Congregations Act Extension* [127]; Public Parks (Ireland)* [147] and passed.

TRADE OF EXETER—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience occasioned to the trade of the Port of Exeter by the proceedings of the Dock authorities at Exmouth; whether the Government will introduce a Measure for the purpose of remedying the same; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence which has taken place on the subject?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the charges levied by the Exmouth Dock Company upon vessels passing up to Exeter under a Private Act of last Session, the effect of which was not, perhaps, clearly understood when it passed. On the other hand, the Exmouth people complain of a similar charge levied by the Exeter Corporation under an ancient charter upon all goods landed at Exmouth. Under these circumstances, the Board of Trade is of opinion that the subject is a very proper one for an arrangement between the two parties, and will be glad to aid in any arrangement which will have the effect of freeing the trade of both places from charges of this nature. It will not, however, be possible, consistently with the Standing Orders, to introduce any Bill this year. When the correspondence is closed I shall have no objection to the right hon. Member moving for it.

SPAIN—BRITISH SAILOR IMPRISONED AT BARCELONA.—QUESTION.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, be wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the case of a British Sailor, of the name of Jones who has been imprisoned for twenty-three months at Barcelona, pending the confirmation of his sentence to
1742
five years in a chain-gang by the Supreme Court at Madrid, has been brought under the notice of the Foreign Office; and, if so, whether the Foreign Office will undertake to represent the case to the Spanish Government?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that tie case had been brought under the notice of the Foreign Office, and it appeared this seaman had been sentenced to the punishment stated for stealing a piece of sailcloth. It seemed to be a sentence of singular severity, and representations had been made upon the matter to the Spanish Government through our Minister. The Foreign Office was informed, by telegram received on Saturday, that the matter had been referred to the Supreme Tribunal of the Marine, and the decision, it was expected, would be received in a few days.

METROPOLIS—STATUES IN PALACE YARD.—QUESTION,
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What has become of the Statue of Sir Robert Peel, lately removed from Palace Yard; whether it is to be re-erected; if so, where; and, whether there are other Statues or Works of Art warehoused in Government Stores; if so, what are his intentions respecting them?
LORD ELCHOsaid, he also wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any truth in the report that the statue of the late Sir Robert Peel, which was condemned as an eyesore and discredit to his memory by the late Parliament, is about to be erected within a few feet of the spot whereon it stood before it was removed by the Vote of the House of Commons?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the statue of the late Sir Robert Peel was now in a Government store. As regarded the re-erection of the statue, he was waiting for a communication from the Committee, under whose auspices it was made, upon the subject. There were two other statues also warehoused in Government stores—namely, those of Brunel and Stephenson. He found that it was proposed to place these statues side by side with that of Canning; but it appeared to him that the particular spot where the latter statue stood was peculiarly adapted for the statues of

1743
statesmen, and that it would be an incongruity to place the statues of Brunei and Stephenson there. Besides, the Canning statue was eleven feet high, while that of Brunel was eight and Stephenson nine feet high. He had the statues put into the warehouse very carefully, and it was proposed to place them on the Thames Embankment, which would be an appropriate site for them. With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) there was no truth in the rumour that the statue of Sir Robert Peel was about to be placed near the entrance to Palace Yard. It had been arranged that Lord Palmerston and Sir Robert Peel should stand back to back, one outside and the other inside the railings—but the latter was removed, and then it was determined that Lord Palmerston's statue should be erected on the outside of the railings. He thought it however, advisable that the sculptor—Mr. Woolmer—should place the statue and pedestal in model in their places, so that the House might judge as to the position.

METROPOLIS—CREMORNE GARDEN'S.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he would bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Cremorne Gardens are frequently open until 3 a.m. by special License to the great annoyance of the inhabitants of that neighbourhood, and whether he intends to take any stops to prevent a recurrence of the nuisance?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that under the authority of the Act of Parliament the Secretary of State had given permission for the gardens being kept open beyond the usual hour for five days during the present year. Upon inquiry he understood the proceedings at the gardens were conducted with the greatest possible order, and he had received no complaints whatever with respect to them. If such a complaint were made he should feel it his duty to inquire into it.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
ENDOWED SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 115.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause A (Definition of endowment).
  MR. J. LOWTHERgave notice that he would in Clause 29 move an Amendment to except, from the Bill all charities not devoted to purposes of education.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Schemes for application of educational endowments).
  MR. T. CHAMBERS MR. T. CHAMBERS moved, in line 3, after "shall," to insert, "with the consent of the Governing Body."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Amendment, if adopted, would entirely defeat the Bill.
  MR. LOCKEsupported the Amendment. Not only were a vast number of schools in favour of reform, but many of them had schemes drawn up, which they were most desirous of carrying out were it not that difficulties were thrown in their way, inasmuch as it was necessary for them to go before the Court of Chancery for the purpose. He did not know whether the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) Mere the precise words that should be introduced; but he was quite satisfied, especially as we did not know who these Commissioners might be, or what course they might take, that the governors of the schools, many of whom had continued to be of the same class of persons from the time of Edward VI., ought to have an opportunity of carrying out the objects of the founder.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken could not have read the Bill very closely as it came from the Select Committee, or he would have seen that it contained a power of initiating schemes on the part of the Governing Body, in the first instance, in the case of the larger schools, and a concurrent power in the case of the smaller. It might be a matter for consideration by the Committee of the Whole House whether those powers

  1745
  were large enough, but the place to raise the question was when they came to the clauses which dealt with the working machinery of the Bill. Now, he would make an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had, with an industry and ability above all praise, conducted its labours, and had kept with great good humour men of very different views who composed it up to the collar, whether it would not avoid a great deal of suspicion if the names of the Commissioners were published in the Bill, or, at all events, if they were given at an early date?
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that other Commissioners had to submit their schemes annually to Parliament. He would not, however, press his Amendment at the present moment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that these small charities might be swept away by the Commissioners without any appeal to Parliament. If they wanted to form any great scheme, they might take any number of small charities wherewith to set up middle-class schools, and in that way the poor might be wronged without any interference on the part of Parliament. Such a power could hardly be given with safety to any gentlemen, however able they might be. If these small charities were doing no good. Parliament should make them useful. The only persons protected in the Bill seemed to be the Quakers; all the rest were at the mercy of the Commissioners.
  MR. WALTERsaid, there could be no doubt that the whole Bill hinged on this clause, and that, if the words of the Amendment were adopted, the measure would be practically upset. It was a mistake to assume that by this clause a despotic power was given to the Commissioners. Ample powers were given by the Bill, by which the action of the Commissioners would be watched and guarded at every stage. The Governing: Body of any endowed school could not only make objections to the scheme proposed by the Commissioners, but might frame an alternative scheme which must be considered by the Commissioners. An appeal then lay, by the 38th clause, to the Queen in Council, and after all this the scheme must lie for forty days on the table of the House before it became law. [Mr. HENLEY: Not unless the income of the charity is £100 a year.]
  1746
  With regard to Quakers and Moravians, it was found that there were certain schools in which their religious tenets were so inextricably mixed up with the origin and constitution of the schools that it was necessary to except them, and the same measure of justice was dealt to certain Church of England schools which were bound up with cathedral institutions.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was not by this clause but by the next that any exception was made regarding Quakers and Moravians, and that when they came to Clause 41 he would state the reasons which had led the Government to limit the appeal to Parliament to the case of endowed schools having an income of £100. He hoped that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Chambers) would not persevere with his Amendment, which would defeat the object of the Bill. If the Commissioners were named in the Bill, the House would be dealing, not with the Government, but with those three gentlemen. The responsibility ought to rest upon the Government of the day, and they ought not to be relieved of it by naming the Commissioners in the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, the Inclosure Commissioners made their Reports to Parliament, which had an opportunity, at every stage, of objecting to any portion of an inclosure scheme. There must be some power to alter the present Governing Bodies of these schools; but the best plan would be for the Government to initiate a scheme, and engraft it into an Educational Bill for the year. He hoped that some means would be adopted for bringing the educational schemes of the Commissioners before Parliament practically upon the responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. MOWBRAYsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not more distinctly responded to the appeal of his hon. Friend Mr. Beresford Hope) as to the Commissioners. In the Bills of 1854 and 1856, for a reform of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the Commissioners were named. The names of the Commissioners were also inserted in the Boundary Bill of 1868, in the Bill of last year for the reform of the great public schools, and in the Irish Church Bill of the present Session. It was not that his hon. Friend and himself dis-

  1747
  trusted the Government. The ultimate responsibility, no doubt, rested with, the Ministry; but the Commissioners had first, to deal with the matter, and he hoped that Parliament would receive early information as to the names of the Commissioners.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought that the discretion in this matter might well be left in the hands of the Government.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that Clauses 9 and 10 were only the enabling clauses of the Bill, and that the discussion should be postponed until a later period.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the only desire of the Government was to act in the spirit of former precedents. It was material to remember that the subject had been fully considered by the Select Committee, who, after a discussion and division, voted in favour of the present plan, according to which the names of the Commissioners were not inserted in the Bill. The insertion of the names of Commissioners in a Bill turned, not upon their being paid or not, but upon the fact whether they were mainly held to be responsible to Parliament or to the Government. Whenever the Government were made responsible for the acts of the Commissioners the practice of Parliament was not to desire them to be named in the Bill. On the other hand, if they wore named in the Bill the effect was to throw a great deal of the responsibility upon the House of Commons. Now, all the acts of the Commissioners would be null and void, unless approved by the Privy Council, and the responsibility for their recommendations was that of the Government. The course taken by the Government was in accordance both with precedent and reason. The case most relevant to the present was that of the Poor Law Act. The Commissioners who were to be appointed in that Act wore much more independent of the Government than the present Commissioners, but they were not named in the Act. There was, however, nothing unreasonable on the part of the House in wishing to know the names of the Commissioners, and he trusted that the Government would be enabled to gratify this desire during the progress of the Bill—probably next week.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he heard with much gratification the promise just made by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the division in
  1748
  the Committee, there was only a majority of 6 against 4 against inserting the names of the Commissioners in the Bill. He trusted that the House would learn the names at an early day.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was important to ascertain at once whether the right hon. Gentlemen the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education intended to insist on the 41st clause, as it had a great bearing upon the clause now under consideration. He (Mr. Henley) had no doubt that proper persons would be appointed Commissioners, but he saw no reason why the Bill should not provide for the protection of the smaller endowments, as well as those over £100.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was anticipating the discussion which would arise on a subsequent clause. It would be open to the right hon. Gentleman when the clause was proposed, either to dispute it altogether or to move to alter it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Bill took away the legal titles of those endowments, and gave them instead a title dependent only on the Government of the day. In the case of small and scattered charities it would be almost impossible for an hon. Member to get the attention of the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Schemes as to governing bodies).
  MR. T. CHAMBERS MR. T. CHAMBERS moved to add at the end the clause—
  "Provided always, That the Commissioners shall not exercise such power in the case of any Governing Body of an educational endowment of any guild or corporate body of the City of London unless the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales shall, after an investigation made by them, report to the Commissioners in writing that such educational endowment has been mismanaged."
  It could not be said this clause would render the Bill nugatory. The schools in the City were admirably well managed; the corporate bodies were, as a rule, proud of them, and it was only fair they should have the protection claimed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Amendment would make the Bill nugatory for the City of London. No Bill would have been necessary at all if the Charity Commissioners, as at present constituted, were capable of dealing

  1749
  with the schools. If an exemption were granted in the case of schools in the City of London, it would be scarcely possible to refuse exemption to schools outside the City. The logical result would be to accept the present powers of the Charity Commissioners as sufficient. The Charity Commissioners wore hardly worked, and they had no special educational knowledge; and it would be quite impossible to achieve the contemplated reform if the clause was altered as the Amendment proposed to leave it. He should not be acting quite candidly if he were to say that all the City schools were so exceptionally well managed that they ought to be left out of any general scheme for reforming the organization of grammar schools. Undoubtedly some were well managed; one, in particular, managed by the Corporation, was a model school, and had nothing to fear from this Bill. Probably one so well managed would be held up as an example rather than interfered with. There were eight municipal schools, with l,512 scholars and forty-five undergraduates; but the twelve schools belonging to Companies taught only 1,090 scholars, and sent thirty-five undergraduates to the Universities.
  "The cost from quasi public sources—that is, both from endowment, and contributions of the governors—is, in the case of the municipal schools, £2,000; in the Companies' schools, £9,400 In other words, the Companies' schools cost quasi public funds nearly five times as much, educate little more than two-thirds as many scholars, and produce only three-fourths as many University students. The public cost of the Companies' schools is £3 6s. per boy; of the municipal schools, £1 7s."
  That was the account given in the Report of the Schools Commission. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member to trust to the good management of the school in which he was interested. The Commissioners and the Government would have enough to do in meddling with bad schools, and would let good schools alone. The last institutions he would interfere with, without good reason, were the schools governed by the Companies of the City of London.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, as he had received no encouragement from any of the City Members he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BOUVERIEasked if there was to be no power of appeal from the Commissioners? He thought, although
  1750
  power of appeal to the Privy Council might not be expedient in every case, it was certainly necessary in some, because of the largeness of the powers given to the Commissioners: it came to this, that corporations might be snuffed out, without being heard.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would suggest that it would be better to consider this question in the clause devoted to it. Clause 38 gave a power of appeal in certain cases, and the hon. Member for Marylebone had given notice of an Amendment to extend the power to all cases. He (Mr. Forster) thought such a power would only lead to litigation. Large powers had undoubtedly been given to the Commissioners for the difficult work of preparing schemes for re-organizing all these schools; but those powers would be fenced round at every point. The Commissioners might prepare a scheme, but must consult the Head Master and the Trustees, and must consider an alternative scheme sent in by them. Inquiry must then be made before any action could be taken.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11. (Educational interests of persons entitled to privileges).
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he wished for an explanation of the clause. He hoped to get an assurance that the property of such educational charities as the Bedford Charity would not be diverted from the local objects for which they had been granted. The schools at Bedford were very large day schools, open to all the world. They consequently drew to Bedford a large number of persons having limited incomes, and anxious for the education of their children, and a number of houses had been built likely to suit such families. The question was, therefore, one of property, as well as education, as far as Bedford was concerned; for if the school were stripped of its endowment, those who lived at Bedford, for the educational means it afforded, would leave the town, and those who had invested in buildings for them would be great losers. If the view of the Government was that the endowment should be left to the town, and that the operations of the Commissioners should be confined to the introduction of such reforms in the management as might be suggested, a statement to that effect would remove great appre-

  1751
  hensions at present existing in the town. He could assure his right hon. Friend that the Commissioners would meet with no difficulty in dealing with the conductors of Bedford School.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was not easy to state the interpretation which would be put on the phrases "particular class of persons." and "due regard, to the educational interests of such class of persons." Indeed, an interpretation might possibly have to be placed upon the clause by a Court of Law under Clause 38. Believing a great deal of misapprehension existed as to the views of the Government, with regard to endowments such as Bedford, he stated that it was not intended to divert from a locality any endowment which was not plainly more than sufficient for the purposes of that locality. Undoubtedly, the locality, originally endowed, had the first claim; and indisputable proof of the superabundance of the endowment would have to be given to the Commissioners, Government, and Parliament, before it, could be taken away. He believed it was suggested in the Report of the Commission that the Bedford endowment might be applied to the county; but he would certainly not approve that suggestion now, and he believed the county would be provided for elsewhere. That endowment in Bedford was performing a great work, not only for Bedford, but also, he might say, for the whole Empire. It was quite possible that the Governing Body might be as ready to accept the suggestions of the Commissioners as the Commissioners would be to make them. At all events, it was a great advantage that there should be in Bedford one very large endowed establishment, at which the sons of persons who, from no fault of their own, had been reduced in circumstances, might obtain a good education.
  MR. J. HOWARDwas glad that the right hon. Gentleman who had acted as Chairman of the Select Committee had given so satisfactory an explanation of the clause, which, coupled with other alterations adopted by the Select Committee, would go far to remove the objections that were felt against the provisions of the original Bill, both in this House and throughout the country. The Trustees of the Bedford Endowment would, he felt assured, be willing to carry out every improvement which
  1752
  might be suggested for rendering the schools more useful and efficient. As the Bill was originally drawn, such unlimited and arbitrary powers were conferred upon the three Commissioners, that he was not surprised at the great alarm which was felt by Trustees of schools as well as the public. The Select Committee had curbed and controlled the power of these Commissioners; and it occurred to him that the remarks of several hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in the course of the discussion appeared to be directed more against the Bill, in its original, than in its amended form. He expressed a hope that the three Commissioners would be named at an early day, believing this would allay much irritation.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause A. 12 (Schemes to extend benefit to girls).
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: * Sir, I propose in this clause to insert after the word "girls" the words "equally with boys." The clause would then read—
  "In framing schemes under this Act provision shall be made, so far as conveniently may be, for extending to girls equally with boys the benefits of endowments."
  The words I now propose to introduce were in the clause as I originally moved it in the Select Committee, and I am fully persuaded that if these words are left out the clause will be practically useless. The present state of the case is this—the whole of the educational endowments of the country, with the exception of those of the primary schools, are now monopolized by boys.. The whole of the vast endowments of the Universities and of other collegiate institutions in England, Scotland, and Ireland are of course absolutely restricted to boys. The whole of the endowments of the public schools dealt with by the Act of last Session are restricted to boys; and, substantially, the whole of the endowments covered by this Bill—the whole of the endowments, that is to say which provide secondary education, education between that given by the primary schools and that given by the Universities—are also monopolized by boys. I say that this is substantially the case, because if I wore to state to the Committee the infinitesimal proportion of the endowments which the girls do enjoy the contrast would be

  1753
  still more striking. Practically there is no provision whatever above the rank of the primary schools for the education of women. The endowments which are covered by this Bill amount in round numbers to between £300,000 and £400,000 a year, which wasted and abused as they have been, yet provide education for some 40,000 scholars, Now what proportion of this sum of money is devoted to the education of girls? What proportion of these scholars are girls? Out of this amount of from £300,000 to £400,000 only £3,000 are devoted to the education of girls, and of the 40,000 scholars, 39,000 are boys. This is in many cases directly in the teeth of the intention of the founders of the charities. Notably is this the case with the magnificent endowments of Christ's Hospital, the net income of which institution now annually applied to education is upwards of £50,000. Now, although it was originally founded for the education of children without distinction of sex, at the close of 1867—I have no later figures—this endownent was educating sixteen girls and 1,400 boys. I do not pretend that this is the general case. I admit that the great; majority of these endowments were; originally intended for boys, but then it must be remembered what is the basis upon which this Bill goes. We are using a great, though I think a wise and justifiable, freedom in setting aside or modifying the original intentions of the founders. I agree upon this point with everything that fell from my right Friend the author of the Bill when he moved the second reading. He told i us that the founders were the reformers of their day, and that, were they here, they would be before us and not behind us in seeking to any out such changes as would make their endowments more useful and better adapted to attain the j great end they aimed at—namely, the education and advancement of the people. I may here glance, in passing, at some of the objections which will naturally arise to my proposal. It may be said that if we take half of these j endowments for girls we shall materially diminish and, perhaps, cripple the endowments for boys. Now, in the first place, if this were the fact, my claim would be no less just. In the second place, the existing interests of all persons are scrupulously guarded
  1754
  by the Bill. In the third place, I ask the Committee to remember that these endowments are not now used economically; they are used wastefully; and is to be hoped that, when they are consolidated and re-distributed and generally re-constructed under the provisions of this Act, the benefits they are capable of conferring will be considerably extended. Moreover, there is a clause, Clause 29 of this Bill, tinder which we hope to get for educational purposes a large number of endowments which it-is admitted on all hands are at present absolutely hurtful in their pauperizing effect, and remember that in many of those endowments women have shared equally with men. I refer especially to dole funds and other endowments of a similar kind. Then the question is asked—How is this scheme to be carried out? I need not enter into particulars upon the matter, but the report of the Commissioners and the evidence they have taken suggests how it may be done. In the first place, if there were day schools of a higher character than the primary schools established in the great towns, I believe they would be largely frequented by girls of the middle class; I speak especially of the shop-keeping class, a class which is now, perhaps, relatively behind others in education. And. in the second place, I am not afraid to avow the opinion that we might go much further than we do in the direction of having mixed education of boys and girls. We have it in the primary schools, where boys and girls are educated side by side, and I do not think anyone will pretend to show any inaptitude on the part of girls for being-taught, or any failure in the result. It is obvious that the same building and the same teaching power in a town might very easily be made applicable to the education of girls as well as to the education of boys. This, then, I say, is a mode in which girls might take advantage of these endowments equally with boys, and I claim it on their behalf. My right hon. representative the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we know objects to all endowments for education, on the ground that free trade would provide education sufficient both in quantity and quality: and to a certain extent I agree with him as far as regards the education of boys, because a boy's education has a great and obvious money's

  1755
  worth. We know very well that parents are prepared to make, and do make considerable sacrifices to give their sons education. In fact, five-sixths of the, sons of the middle class are not educated in endowed schools at all but in private schools. But this does not apply to girls. It pays to educate boys, but most parents think the Consols a better investment than the education of their daughters, in fact, whatever is spent on their education—I speak of the middle class—is spent grudgingly, more from deference to fashion than from any perception of its substantial usefulness. If I am over-stating the case. I know am stating that which is true of a very large proportion of the middle class. I am certain the parents will not make: the sacrifices for the education of their daughters that they do make for the education of their sons. What is the result of this? It would be unbecoming for me, if I could do it, to give the Committee a picture of the present state of the education of women; but I may refer them to the Report of the Commission of which I have already spoken, and I would call their attention not only to the Report of the Commissioners themselves, but also to the evidence of the witnesses, many of them high authorities upon all educational questions, who crane before them, and to the Reports, of the sub Commissioners who were sent, through the country to investigate the state of education in their various districts. All these are unanimous in what they say as to the state of education of women in the middle class. They say that it is scanty in quantity; they say that it is poor and frivolous in quality; and they say it is exorbitant in price. In a word it is very bad, very dear, and—it is almost a consolation to add—there is very little of it. If this be, as it is, the case—for I shall be very much surprised if any hon. Member gels up and contradicts the statement from his own observation—then I think it calls for very grave consideration. Of course there are educated women, and there are, good schools and good teachers, but these are the exceptions; and especially I ask the Committee to remember they are the exceptions in the class for whom the benefits of this Bill were intended. Now I suppose nobody will say that girls do not need education as much as boys: they start as ignorant, and they
  1756
  have no special means of acquiring knowledge. I cannot bear to value education in money, and consider how soon and how effectually it can be coined into it. I value education—as I suppose every educated man values it—for its own sake: for the mental wealth, for the dignity of character, for the intense yet pure enjoyments it confers. The truth is, the great curse of the life of most men, and still more of most women, is its supreme littleness. It matters not whether it be little frivolous amusements or little carting cares. From one end of society to the other a little life must be a miserable one. If then you will take the opportunity which now offers of giving the blessing of education to those whom our legal and social restrictions exclude almost entirely from active life, and who, by their enforced leisure, have rare opportunities for mental cultivation, you will enlarge and ennoble their lives and add materially to the stun of human happiness. I said that women were almost entirely shut out from active life, but the Committee knows that there is another side, and a very sad side, to that statement. There are thousands and thousands of women who are not thus shut out, but are rather thrust into the thick of it. Thousands of women are sent adrift every year to struggle for themselves and earn their bread as best they may. Take these figures from the: Census of 1861. There was then a population in England and Wales of, in round numbers, 20,000,000; 10,000,000 of men and 10,000,000 of women, because God seems to make, as many women as He does men, although we do not provide education for them in the same proportion. Of these 10,000,000 of women of all ages, more than 2,000,000 were engaged in industrial pursuits of various kinds other than domestic; that is, they were not domestic servants, or engaged in household pursuits. Of these 2,000,000 of women, nearly 100,000 were engaged in professions, chiefly, of course, as teachers. We all know that this state of things in going on increasingly, and that the condition of society' is such that the number of women who have to support themselves increases every year. The emigration of men in greater numbers than women, the vicissitudes of fortune in this speculative age, the death or loss of health of those who supported them—these and other

  1757
  causes I cannot now dwell upon, are constantly driving women in larger and larger numbers to support themselves and those dependent on them. You cannot prevent that, you cannot insure women against it, but there is one thing you can do—you need not add to this the cruelty, for it is a cruelty, of sending them out in this way to fight, as they have to do, the battle of life unarmed and unprepared, because uneducated. It goes hard with poverty and weakness in that battle; they do not need to be weighted with the curse of ignorance. This is the truth, and it lies at our door unless we will remedy it. What are the consequences? The results to the sufferers themselves are sad enough. The suffering, the vice, the sorrow which flow from all this—how can I speak of these things? But it does not stop there; the evil reacts with righteous retribution upon the next generation. The ignorance of a class must reproduce itself, Where do you expect to find the teachers for the next generation of women, but among the women of this? Even of these you do not get the most educated, as a rule. Few women adopt teaching as a profession, except from necessity. Want, not capacity, is too often the chief qualification. From imperfectly educated women you can choose only imperfectly educated teachers, and from these what can you expect but imperfectly educated scholars? And in this vicious circle you must continue to move until you bring yourselves to break the circle by a wider and sounder education for women generally. But I admit, and it is the strongest part of my case, that the most natural place to look for women is at homo. At the time I have spoken of, when the Census of 1861 was taken, while 2,000,000 of women were earning their bread by industrial pursuits, 3,500,000 were married, and, for the most part, heads of families. Well, what of this? Only this, that they are the mothers and teachers of the whole of the next generation. Boys and girls alike are committed to their care. Why, here is folly we are spending infinite trouble and thought and time and millions of money upon the education of the people, and in training their teachers, yet we neglect the best and most natural teachers of all. We never can compete with them. We cannot prevent their teaching. They wait for no
  1758
  State certificate. They ask for no State pay. They are teaching constantly and unweariedly, with a power that nothing can match; and what you make them, that, and that only, can they make their children. It is impossible that it can be otherwise. I should like to mention one thing- with regard to this. Everyone who has observed the social changes which are taking place among us must have noticed that the home in England at the present day is a matter of far greater importance than it was. We are reverting, as Mr. Darwin would say, to our original type. The fact is that in the last 100 or 150 years the household has became more and more the unit, and centre of English society. Every social virtue we have has taken its rise there, and no one can look upon this change without satisfaction. But then, whether the influence of the home shall be an evil or the contrary, whether it shall retard or advance the progress of society, will depend chiefly upon the woman who is at the head of it. There is only one more point which I wish to advert to. I am sorry to detain the Committee so long, but the matter is not a trifle. It is the education of half the people. There is one subject which I cannot dwell upon fully here, but which I cannot pass over and that is the influence of the ever-widening gulf between the education of women and men upon the religious faith and habits of the people. It has already come to this. Let us state it honestly. We do not believe, and are not expected to believe, what women do or as they do. And what is the result? That there is in our homes a thin veil of hypocrisy—I cannot use a milder word—a certain insincerity and want of perfect freedom, harmony, and confidence. I know that there are some who regard this as a good thing, and think, at any rate, faith may flourish among the women if it does not among the men. But is it wise to keep the shutters closed that the idle dancers within may not know the day has dawned? Yet this is what we are doing. If this goes on it cannot last long. How long do you suppose the present dislocation of thought upon these subjects will continue? It can- not, I believe, continue another generation. We shall see here what we see already in some foreign countries, the women sunk in abject and frivolous su-

  1759
  perstition, and the men stranded on the shore of a barren scepticism. If you dread this, if yon would see a rational, manly piety flourish in this country, you must without delay educate the women. I know I have dealt with the subject very inadequately, and I wish it had fallen into better hands. There are many aspects of it which can be treated becomingly only by older men. It is pre-eminently a subject which require an authoritative speaker, for there are no examples or precedents to which I can point. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. J. Howard) told us the other night, in the debate on the Patent Laws, that men had been going on grinding corn for 3,000 years without any material improvement in the method until a very recent discovery. For 3,000 years we have had civilization of every sort, creeds, philosophies, and social and political systems of every kind, and at this moment it is a matter of the purest speculation what sort of society that would be in which women should be only as well educated as men. I say it requires a statesman, and something more than a mere private Member to take up and deal with such a subject as this. I could wish that my right hon. Friend who has shown such a far-reaching insight into the wants which have called for this measure, and into the social results he intends it to accomplish, had recognized the equal importance of the education of women and men as one of the great bases of his legislation. I may mistrust, and I ought to mistrust, my own judgment; but let me say this—There are men on both sides of the House whom to know is to reverence, and before whose genius I cannot choose but bow; but when I see and cannot understand the relative importance which subjects of this kind seem to assume, in their eyes, I cannot help asking myself of this statesman and that what conception he has formed of the future of this country; what ideal does he cherish of its greatness yet to be? We have ceased to look for it in military power; we cannot trust to our commercial pre-eminence. Younger and more favoured countries must sooner or later pass us in that race; there is only one way in which we can place the greatness of our country on a sure and lasting foundation, and that is by the intellectual culture and the moral elevation of the people. We are all beginning to see
  1760
  this. No one sees it more clearly than my right hon. Friend, and this measure is a step in that direction. But it is only half a measure. Hudibras wore but one spur, because he thought if he could make one side of his horse go, the other would not be far behind. That is what you are doing here. You think if you educate the men the women will not be far behind. But history belies your expectation, and shows that, although the men cannot take the women forward, the women may drag the men bock, and indefinitely retard the progress of society. I feel that this is too great a subject to be dealt with incidentally in Committee on this Bill, yet it must be dealt with now or never; for the arrangements of the educational endowments to be made under this Bill are such as we hope will last. I leave the subject and all responsibility for it with the Committee. I have but one arrow more in my quiver, and that I am inclined to shoot at a venture, for I am very much in earnest upon this subject, and it may hit the mark. If there is any man who hears me who has known, I will not say a mother's love, for that a she-wolf will give, but the wise counsel, the thoughtful sympathy, the stimulus to every noble purpose in life which comes from that affection, when and only when it is united with the vigour of a manly sense and the exquisite refinement of a cultivated mind, the man I say that treasures such a memory should have no doubt what vote to give on my poor clause. I beg to move, after "girls," to insert "equally with boys."
  MR. W. E FORSTERsaid, he was glad the question had been so eloquently introduced. Neither himself nor any member of the Select Committee would yield to his hon. Friend (Mr. Winterbotham) in the conviction—firstly, that girls' education had been greatly neglected; secondly, that they had not such a share as they ought to have of the endowments; and, thirdly, in the hope that the results of this measure would give them a better education and a larger share of the endowments. But, as practical man, he was bound to consider how they could get this measure efficiently carried out. It would be impossible that the endowments could be given equally to boys and girls, for this reason—that a good deal of the enormous endowments we possessed were already appropriated.

  1761
  If they had to set to work to deal with a fresh fund, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that they ought to divide it between girls and boys; but, at the present, the endowments were, for the most part, possessed by boys. He was very anxious that the Commissioners should consider, in the words of the clause, how far they could extend to girls the benefit of these endowments; but it would be quite impossible that they could do so equally, because that would be to deprive the boys of the education which they were already in possession of. He hoped the hon. Gentleman was not too sanguine as to a large amount of endowments being acquired under Clause 29. That clause had been considerably weakened, and was now not compulsory, but simply a clause under which endowments for certain purposes not educational might be applied to educational; purposes. He was exceedingly sorry to oppose the insertion of the words proposed by his hon. Friend, because he did not wish the impression to get abroad that the Government did not feel strongly the necessity of giving education to girls. At the same time, he should be misleading every body if he were to say that the Government were in favour of an equal division of the present endowments between boys and girls.
  MR. G. GREGORYsaid, he thought that it had been too readily assumed that one of the principal things for which women were qualified was teaching. He would remind the House that the great business of their lives lay in: the domestic circle, and in things which could not be taught in schools. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he looked upon I the intellectual culture of girls as of at least equal importance with that of boys, and would support the Amendment as a declaration that, so far as all future educational endowments were concerned, the benefit should be shared equally by boys and girls.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he trusted the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham) would be satisfied with having raised this important discussion. If the Amendment were pressed, the House would be divided on an ambiguous issue. If arithmetical equality were intended, the Bill, instead of being a moderate and tentative measure of re-
  1762
  form, would be as revolutionary a scheme as had ever been brought before the House. Common sense showed that, while the necessity for female education was as great as the necessity for male education, the education required for girls was less extended than that which ought to be imparted to boys.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that if anyone wanted to "knock up" the Bill, and render it unworkable, there was no step more effectual than to insert the words proposed. If perfect equality were to be insisted on, he supposed that girls, as well as boys, must be eligible for exhibitions to the Universities. Again, how was equality to be ascertained? Were they to take an equal number of girls and of boys in a given district? It happened that there were more boys born into the world than there were girls, though somehow when they came towards middle age there were more women in the world than there were men. Then it should be borne in mind that many girls were educated at home, whereas nearly all boys received their education in schools.
  MR. J. HOWARDsupported the Amendment, on the ground that it asserted a principle—one he should be glad to see established—the principle that girls had as great a right to share the endowments as boys. At Bedford, there was a large girls' school, which gave a capital education to over 500 girls, at a cost of something like £500 a year.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that, while concurring cordially with the Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham), and more particularly since hearing his speech, he would appeal to him, in the interest of the cause he had at heart, not to weaken the effect of his speech by going to a division upon an ambiguous issue. This was a matter upon which it was difficult to legislate with anything like decision, and he was afraid that, if they went to a division upon the question as now submitted, the division would convey the impression that the Committee was unfavourable to the view of his hon. Friend. It was not so much a question of equal advantages as of substantial advantages; and what they wished to impress upon the Commissioners, rather by way of direction and instruction than legislation, was that they should net he satisfied with throwing a few crumbs to the girls,

  1763
  but that they should really give them such a substantial proportion as would tell upon their education. In the Select Committee he proposed to introduce the words, "so as to give them as nearly as possible equal advantages with boys." It was impossible to keep out of sight the fact the at, a larger proportion of boys than of girls would avail themselves of: schools and educational endowments, and therefore it was not a case of giving exact numerical equality; but what they wished to do was to adjust endowment, so that girls might derive advantages proportioned to their needs, and as nearly as possible equal to the advantages possessed by boys. Boys already had possession of much it would be difficult to deprive them of and, to a certain extent, boys required more than girls. It might be that one reason why girls were educated at home was that they had not had their fair share of educational advantages. Until they had something in the shape of school education which was really worth having we must not insist upon the argument that girls did not go to school in the same proportion as boys. The inference that a great proportion of women would become teachers, and that this was a question of legislating for female teachers, must also be set aside. Of course, a large proportion of women were teachers in a different sense from that in which the term was used; they were the mothers of children, and necessarily teachers of them in their early years. He attached great weight to the argument based on the disadvantage that might arise from a great separation of feeling between men and women in matters of the highest character, to which the hon. Member for Stroud adverted, not because he would wish in any way by the education of women to deteriorate and depreciate the exceeding value of the tenderness and faithfulness of woman, but, on the contrary, because looking as he did upon woman as the sheet-anchor to a great extent, of the religious feeling of the country, he was anxious that she should have her proper influence over children, and he did not believe she would unless she had a fair share of intellectual power and education. Looking at the matter from this point of view, he thought it was of very great importance we should give our women such a fair share of education as would
  1764
  enable them to keep their proper place In the domestic circle and in the general business in life, so far as women are called upon to take part in it. Nobody wished that women should be educated in precisely the same way as men; but it was as important that women should be well educated in their sphere and for their circumstances, as it was important that men should be educated. The interests of society required that women should have their fair share in these on documents, which no doubt were given for the general benefit of the country. This clause was inserted in the Select Committee in order to direct the attention of the Commissioners to the point; but the Amendment which he proposed was defeated by 4 to 1, and that having been the case he would ask the hon. and learned Member, in the name, of their common cause, not to run the risk of an adverse division here.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he would support the Amendment if there were a division, because he would like to establish the principle of equality with regard to the education of boys and girls. He maintained that girls were entitled to as good an education as boys were; that the measure of capacity should be the measure of instruction, and that girls had a capacity for learning equal to that of boys; and, in proof of that position, he cited the distinctions obtained by women at the Royal College of Science, Dublin, where they had taken several first prizes in competition with University graduates and others.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he would support a Resolution to the effect that the share of endowments which had fallen to women was insufficient, and ought to be larger; but he feared that the words proposed to be inserted in the clause would lead to endless litigation and disappointment; and it was of no use putting words in an Act of Parliament unless public opinion would support them.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he believed the education of women would be better served by the clause as it stood than by the addition of the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Winterbotham) would withdraw the Amendment, and not place many hon. Members who sympathized with his object in a false position. The Committee was

  1765
  engaged, not in asserting a principle, but in directing certain persons. The terms of these directions should be definite, and he feared the Amendment proposed would make them confusing. As a matter of fact, the cause of the education of women was greatly advanced by the Bill as it stood; but if the Amendment were agreed to people would believe that Parliament had decreed that all endowments for educational purposes must henceforth be devoted in equal proportions to the education of either sex. He could not, upon any account, give his sanction to the mixed education of boys and girls, which might be attended with very serious consequences.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that mixed education was by no means an essential feature of the scheme, the use of the same buildings and teaching power being merely an economical arrangement. He should not press his Amendment to a division.
  Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Saving of interest of foundationer, master, governing body, &c.)
  On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER, the words "or girl" were inserted in line 26.
  MR. T. CHAMBERS MR. T. CHAMBERS moved in sub-section 5, line 5, after "patronage," to leave out "which has a marketable value, and is capable of being sold by him."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid the object of the clause was to make due provision for vested interests. If an interest had a marketable value, it ought to be compensated for, otherwise not.
  Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Religious education in day schools).
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he rose to move the omission of the second part of the clause. To the first part, which enabled a parent who had a conscientious objection to the religious teaching of the school to make that objection in writing, and thus secure exemption, he had no opposition to offer. But the second part of the clause was aimed at a teacher introducing religious doctrine in the course of lessons other than religious, and his objection to it was that
  1766
  the Governing Body would be forced to listen to tittle-tattle on the part of the child, or somebody else, who wanted to make mischief, and nothing but confusion would be created. It was no real protection, for the corpus of the clause contained all that was necessary. He begged to move that the second portion of the clause be omitted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the first part of the clause related to actual lessons on religious subject; it was only from these lessons that the master was ordered to dismiss the child, whose parent might have objected; but it was to meet the case in which a master who wished to proselytize might introduce religious teaching during the course of the secular lessons that the other part of the clause was introduced. He did not believe that practically it would lead to the evil effects which his hon. Friend feared. The object was really the protection of the schoolmaster from injudicious interference by parents. In line 11 it was stated that the complaint must be proved, and any Governing Body at all able to do its duty would not countenance frivolous complaints.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he feared the clause would work in a most objectionable way. Some meddling parents might direct a forward child to watch the lessons, and then get up a complaint to which the Governing Body would be obliged to listen.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Committee could give relief in the case of unscrupulous teachers or of captious and disagreeable parents only by an appeal to, or by leaving the matter to the discretion of the Governing Body, as was proposed by the clause. The Governing Body would be on the spot, would know all about the matter, and might be trusted in nine cases out of ten to come to a practical conclusion.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought it would be hector to omit the second paragraph. It was a subject of congratulation to secure the Conscience Clause, for endowed schools, and it would be a pity to mix it up, as was done by this paragraph, with a new principle, of a different, inconsistent, and most objectionable kind.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he must support the clause as it stood was unfair that parents should have no remedy but the withdrawal of their children from the

  1767
  school, if a master persisted in conveying dogmatic teaching in his secular lessons. The true object of a Conscience Clause was to give freedom on both sides, and all that was intended by this clause was to give the Governing Body the power, upon an appeal, to prevent any abuse on the part of the teacher.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he did not think this clause was altogether so free from difficulty as his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) seemed to imagine. The object of the clause was simply as straightforward as possible. An energetic, strongly-opinionated schoolmaster might take advantage of his position to inculcate in secular lessons particular religious tenets, although by the first part of the clause he would be debarred from doing so in religious lessons. The parents of the children certainly had a right to be protected against this, and the conclusion he had arrived at was that the question should be left to the decision of the Governing Body. Take the case of a Protestant school, in which English History would be a branch of the secular instruction. Nobody could maintain that the history of the Reformation could be taught without any reference being made between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. It would be obviously impossible to lay down a rule that in teaching the history of the Reformation a schoolmaster should abstain from all religious comment. The subject was one which ought to be left to the judgment of the Governing Body, which must be supposed to possess common sense. For these reasons he was in favour of the clause as it stood.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he considered it but right that there should be some protection against over-zealous school-masters, and therefore he should vote for maintaining the latter part of the clause.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the second part of the clause would be maintained.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to point out that, under the clause, a schoolmaster might render himself liable to censure if, in the course of teaching, he told a child that thieving was contrary to the commandment of God, as it might happen that the child's parents held atheistical opinions. Much of the difficulty by which the subject was surrounded might, he believed, be obviated if, for "if the complaint be proved," the
  1768
  words "if the complaint be reasonable" were substituted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Hitherto Conscience Clauses had been regarded as somewhat vague and indefinite, because they laid down no rule as to religious teaching being conveyed in lessons on secular subjects the result was that a conscientious school master might be placed in an embarrassing position, and it was with a view to prevent this in the future that the present clause had been framed.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was satisfied with his right hon. Friend's (Mr. W. E. Forster's) statement, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would suggest that the words to be substituted should be "if the complaint is judged to be reasonable."
  MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved to insert "judged to be reasonable," instead of proved."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Schools excepted from provision as to religion).
  MR. CANDLISH MR. CANDLISH moved an Amendment, to substitute twenty-five for fifty years as the time during which a testator's directions with reference to denominational instruction should not be contravened.
  MR. MIALLsupported the Amendment. They ought to fall in with the spirit of the times, which was to limit the area of denominationalisin in our educational institutions as much as possible.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that part of the clause dealt with by the Amendment had been inserted to meet the case of a founder having given an endowment without having completed the statutes during his lifetime; and the provision was inserted at the unanimous wish of the Committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he rose to move the insertion of words requiring that any school the students in which had been instructed in the tenets of any particular creed for two hundred years should continue to be conducted as a school of that creed. The Amendment

  1769
  had special reference to Christ's Hospital. The funds of Christ's Hospital consisted entirely of the donations of private benefactors, who had made their bequests on the distinct understanding that the school would continue to be a Church of England boarding school. He begged to move after "instructed" to add "or any educational endowment by or under which the scholars have for an unbroken period of two hundred years been taught or instructed."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment; it would run counter to a very great deal of the evidence produced before the Committee, and establish that all King Edward's schools must be considered as denominational Church. schools. Several of the Governing Body of Christ's Hospital were Dissenters; to this no objection had been raised, nor did he anticipate any would be raised in the future.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that Christ's Hospital enjoyed none of King Edward's gifts; its funds consisted entirely of endowments by private persons, though it was willing to receive within its walls persons of all religious denominations. In the Act sent forth by Lord Chancellor Cranworth there was a special clause excepting Christ's Hospital on the very; ground that he had just mentioned. Dissenting and Roman Catholic schools had been placed in possession of their revenues in consideration of their special character, and certainly Christ's Hospital ought not to stand in any less advantageous position. If the Government resisted his Amendment he would divide the House.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that although not desirous of making Christ's Hospital a purely Church of England school, he believed, as one of the Governing Body, that people had given the endowments on the understanding that it was to be a Church of England School, and he; thought it would be unjust by Act of Parliament to undo the intentions of those benefactors.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) who generally took a liberal view of these matters, was mistaken in supposing that this school would lose its Church of England character, for though security would be given to parents who entertained conscientious objection to the teaching of
  1770
  the Church, of England, the denominational character of the school would be preserved.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. He most fully appreciated the absence of party spirit with which this matter had been met by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but for that it would haven quite impossible for his right hon. Friend to have advanced to the point which he had reached. But were the Committee prepared to narrow the operation of the King Edward schools by declaring them to be denominational schools?
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that if the clause passed as it stood it would not alter Christ's Hospital, but if altered, it might cause a governor of the hospital to be a party to coercing a relation to attend a form of worship of which he himself disapproved.
  MR. J. HOWARDopposed the Amendment on the ground that it went beyond the scope of the Bill. The effect of it would be that many schools not now recognized as Church or denominational schools, would become so by Act of Parliament. He thought it undesirable to increase the numbers of denominational schools. Christianity tended to deepen and intensify human sympathies—denominationalism tended to narrow and cramp the sympathies of our nature. On these grounds he strongly objected to the Amendment.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he believed the clause was one that would work most advantageously.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the clause carried out the existing law so long as the endowments were single. But he wished to ask what would be the action of the Bill when half-a-dozen endowments were put together, some of them with express words as to the religion to be taught in the schools, some without such words.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, what he understood the question of the right hon. Gentleman to be was, whether, when one of two or more small endowments, which might be consolidated under Clause 9, was defined to be denominational, such endowment would, notwithstanding such consolidation, still come under this clause. He understood that it would, and that there could be no doubt about it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad to hear it. He hoped, however, the right hon. Gentleman would take the opinion of the Law Officers upon it, and, if necessary, make it clear on the Report.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would take care to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that In bridge School was not in the position of Christ's Hospital, because it was distinctly a Church of England school, But it was proposed to place the day scholars in a different position from the boarders, if therefore, a number of persons objected that their children should go to prayers or submit to religious instruction, that would break in on the rules and regulations of the school. It would practically exclude such subjects of teaching as the Greek New Testament. If denominational schools were to be retained the House must allow them to be carried on according to the rules laid down by the founder. The greatest inconvenience and confusion would arise unless the words were omitted—
  "Other than the provisions for the exemption of day scholars from attending prayer or religious worship, or lessons on religious subject, when such exemption has been claimed on their behalf."
  The hon. and learned Member moved that in line 16 these words be omitted accordingly.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment. The Tunbridge Grammar School would one day be an enormously wealthy institution, and it was surely not to be contended that the children of Dissenters should be excluded from it as day scholars.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that no inconvenience had ever arisen at this school with regard to boys of different religions.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the clause was necessary in order to establish a Conscience Clause for the protection of day scholars attending denominational schools. The matter had been well considered by the Committee.
  MR. CILPINsaid, that the principle laid down in the clause was carried out in the City of London School, one of the best schools in the country, and no ill-feeling or inconvenience had arisen. He trusted the Government would stand by the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Application to education of non-educational charities).
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he must take exemption to non-educational charities being introduced into a Bill in which they had no proper place, and to their being diverted from their original purposes at the discretion of the Governing Body. He would therefore move the omission of the greater part of the clause, excepting only the last paragraph which prohibited the inclosure of open spaces.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid that some of these doles were gifts of food, and people must be fed before they could be educated.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the clause as it stood originally was much stronger: it permitted the Commissioners, on the authority of a certificate from the Charity Commissioners, to apply non-educational endowments to be used for educational purposes, but the clause as amended required the consent of the managers of such non-educational endowments before they could be taken by the Commissioners. The Amendment had met with much approval and disapproval. Not only did those interested in education disapprove the change, but those also who had looked forward to this opportunity of getting rid of charities which worked with bad effect. It was, however, feared, that without further inquiry, public opinion would not support the original proposition; while on; the other hand, the Government felt much good would be done if all those cases were dealt with under the Bill in which the managers of a charity were convinced that evil consequences resulted from the administration of the funds they controlled; he especially referred to the granting of doles. He was willing to introduce a limitation ensuring that regard should be had to the application of the funds to the class for whom it was originally intended.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he interpreted the clause as giving power to the trustees of charities to carry out a deed of arrangement without going to the Court of Chancery.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that there was not much likelihood that trustees would wish to divert the endowments, so that practically it would not much matter. As a case in point, he might mention that a tradesman of Knaresborough had left

  1773
  him £4,000. [Laughter] He said left, him, because, as the property was in laud it had to be left absolutely to his cousin and himself to avoid the statutes of mortmain, but it was intended for the aged poor. He had not yet thought it worth while to frame a scheme, because the fund was chargeable with an annuity to the old gentleman's housekeeper; but he was sure if the testator had thought there was any danger of the interest of the funds not being shared by those whom he intended, he would have preferred that his almoner put them in his pocket.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, he objected to the clause, on the ground that it still went too far. It would be better to reserve these matters for special legislation.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) would not press his Amendment. Most Members on his side were inclined to support the clause as it stood.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the clause was hardly fair in such a Bill as this, for it, did not deal with endowed schools, but was neither more nor less than an attempt to grab at every small charity in the country, and apply it by a very summary process to educational purposes. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) that they ought to reserve this subject for special legislation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would consent to strike out the clause.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that this was a clause to enable the Commissioners to grasp at endowments to which they had no right; it was a clause to enable the Governing Body of a charity, the funds of which they were not able to distribute beneficially, to use those funds, if they thought fit, for educational purposes. Not very long since a large sum of money which had been originally left for the liberation of slaves from Barbary had accumulated in the hands of one of the livery companies. They applied to the Charity Commissioners, and at length an Act of Parliament was obtained to enable them to distribute the money among various schools. It would not be in the power of the Commissioners to take any portion of the funds unless with the consent of the Governing Body. The clause had been fully approved by the Committee upstairs.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed that great disappointment would be felt, throughout the country if the clause did not pass. He regretted that it had not been found possible to make it compulsory. As it stood it was a compromise, and it was felt by a majority of the Select Committee to be the only arrangement that could be come to in the present position of affairs. The powers of the Charity Commissioners with regard to these new educational endowments would not be altered by the Bill.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, that in some towns there were enormous funds applied to purposes of the grossest corruption, and the question was how to get legislative power to deal with these cases. The only way was to import the Governing Body into the matter. Not seeing his way to a higher body, he should feel bound to support the conclusion of the Select Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had intended to move the substitution of the Charity Commissioners for the Governing Bodies of these charities, but after the explanation of the Vice President of the Council he should accept the clause. He regretted, however, that more had not been done in regard to these wretched and demoralizing doles. He had received a letter from the vicar of a parish in Lincolnshire, stating that in his own and a neighbouring parish these charities amounted to £800 a year, only £30 of which was applied to purposes of education. When the distribution was made it was followed by a week of intemperance and debauch. There were not less than 200 of these doles, and where they prevented one pauper they made three. He rather regretted that the Governing Bodies had been imported into the clause, and thought that some steps should be taken to inquire into these smaller charities.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could not agree in casting imputations on the Governing Bodies of these charities, because he believed they endeavoured to the best of their ability to carry out the intentions of their founders. He thought that where the funds of these charities had largely increased they might be applied to educational purposes. He was the trustee of a charity for giving marriage portions a fees on apprenticeship. The income had greatly increased, and the trustees had applied to the Court of Chancery and obtained per-

  1775
  mission to apply a portion of the funds to educational purposes. The result had been most beneficial to the parish. This clause would only carry out what the Governing Body now had the power to do by applying to the Court of Chancery.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, he doubted whether they were not encouraging the trustees of these charities to give up and violate their trusts. The doles might be badly managed, and he thought there ought to be an Inquiry by a Select Committee, when the House could deal with these charities as it thought fit. It did not, however, follow that, because they were badly managed, the funds ought to be given for educational purposes. He trusted that the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, there were a great number of cases in which these doles tended to demoralize those who received them, and where the diversion of the funds to educational purposes would raise the neighbourhood in morals and intelligence. The Commissioners under this Bill would be Charity Commissioners for educational purposes.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that the only fault he was disposed to find with the clause was that it limited the discretionary power of the Commissioners in regard to the Governing Bodies. It did not however follow, because great mischief was done by these doles, that education was the only object to which the funds could be beneficially applied. These doles for the most part originated in the kindly feeling or interest entertained by benevolent persons towards the poor inhabitants of the parishes in which they lived; but in the progress of tine if was discovered, by persons who had inquired into the subject, that doles, instead of promoting the welfare and happiness of a community, usually produced a contrary effect, and tended more than anything else towards the pauperism and demoralization of the parishes in which they were established. In carrying out the doctrine referred to by his hon. Friend it appeared to him that it would be more convenient if, in parishes where sufficient educational provision already existed, the doles, instead of being diverted to the general educational purposes of the country at large, were appropriated to other benevolent purposes within those parishes. Take, for example, the ease of a parish in which there were doles to the amount of
  1776
  several hundreds of pounds a year, and suppose that there already existed in it ample provision for its educational requirements. Would it not be worth while to consider whether in such a case the doles might not be more appropriately given to the county hospital or to some institution likely to benefit directly the parish from which the doles were taken, instead of being lavished up in schools and other educational establishments in which the inhabitants of the parish had no interest whatever? He had raised this question before the Select Committee, but they thought themselves incompetent to deal with it. It was, however, in his judgment well worth while for hon. Members to consider whether these doles might not be more fitly applied to the wants of the particular parishes from which they were withdrawn than to increasing the general educational resources of the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) formed another reason which rather induced him to accede to the proposed change, for he was inclined to believe that there were objects, other than educational ones, to, which these charities might be applied. At the same time he must point out that this was a matter beyond the scope of the present Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he trusted his lion. Friend the Member for York would not think it necessary to divide the Committee. He was of opinion that means might be devised to carry out the wise proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire. If there were a division on the present Amendment it would not be a true test of the feelings of hon. Members. For his own part, he should deem himself in honour bound to support the decision of the Select Committee, and to vote for the original clause.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEalso appealed to the hon. Member for York to withdraw his Amendment. He agreed in what had been stated of the mischievous character of many of these doles. They had been called aids to the poor rate, but in reality they increased it, by fostering pauperism. He knew a parish in the South of England, rich in these charities, the poor rates of which were double those in the surrounding parishes. At the same time it was a question of degree, and he agreed with the hon. Member for North Devon that care ought to

  1777
  be taken lest the application of these bequests to educational purposes merely saved the pockets of those who ought to support the means of education. He believed that the useful objects adverted to by the hon. Member for Berkshire might be attained by agreement between the Charily Commissioners and the Governing Bodies under the law as it now stood.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had originally felt sorry that the words with the consent of the Governing Body," had been introduced into the clause; but he was convinced that it was necessary to do so, as the clause would otherwise have been so vague that general charities, such as the Literary Fund, might have been brought within its operation.
  MR. J. LOWTHERintimated his intention of withdrawing the Amendment.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished, before the Amendment was withdrawn, to ask the right, him. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, whether he did not think it right that some provision should be introduced that the parties interested should have an opportunity of being heard?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would promise to take the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion into consideration. He might remark, however, that under Clause 32, the Commissioners would be obliged to publish and circulate their scheme in a manner which would give information to all parties interested.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. PARKERsaid, he proposed to add to the objects of non-educational charities enumerated in the clause to be applied to educational purposes, loans, apprenticeship fees, and advancement in life. He moved in page 9, line 38, after "debt," to insert "loans, apprenticeship fees, and advancement in life." The words were in the Bill as it originally stood, and he thought there could be no objection to them now that the consent of the Governing Body was required.
  MR. A. PEELsaid, in support of the Amendment he might state that in the borough of Warwick there was a fund called Sir Thomas White's charity, which was established for the purpose of assisting young tradesmen starting in business. £7.000 was now out on loan from the charity, but there was a surplus of £20,000 which no one knew how to deal with and it was at present absolutely,
  1778
  useless. The Charity Commissioners had approved of a scheme for applying the fund for the purposes of education; but it had not been carried out, nor would it be unless those words were inserted in the Bill.
  MR. GREAVESsaid, he wished to add to what had been stated by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Peel), that there were also large accumulations upon funds established to provide apprenticeship fees, for which there was not the same demand as formerly. As Sir Thomas White was the founder of Merchant Taylers' School and other educational institutions, it could hardly be a contravention of his wishes to devote these surplus funds to education.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no objection to the re-insertion of the words, now that the assent of the Governing Body was to be required for any appropriation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Preparation of draft scheme).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that in cases where the endowments amounted to less than £2,000 a year, a scheme for altering the administration of the charity was to be prepared by the Charily Commissioners, really without the parties concerned having any voice in the matter. He moved in line 36, to omit the word "two," and insert the word "one"
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Amendment would bring in a great many schools whose managers would be greatly perplexed if they were asked to suggest new schemes. Clause 33 gave power to the Governing Body to suggest an alternative scheme after they had received the proposal of the Commissioners, and he assured the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that the whole of the 3,000 schools not empowered to take the initiative would have as much deference paid to their recommendations as if they were entitled to frame schemes in the first instance. The hon. Baronet might have in his mind a particular school, no doubt of much importance, at Brentwood, which would be excluded by this clause; but the line must be drawn somewhere, and the Select Committee had chosen this as the proper point.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the 33rd clause did not give power of appeal, but the explanation of the right hon. Member induced him to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DIXON MR. DIXON moved an addition to the clause, to the effect that in cases where the endowment exceeded £10,000 a year the Town Council of the borough in which such endowment existed should have the like power of submitting a scheme as the Governing Body. There was a report that the Governing Body of the Birmingham Endowed School had no intention to present a scheme at all, and the object of the Amendment was to guard against such a contingency.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Birmingham School was the only one to which the proviso would apply. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon) would see that the 33rd clause would adequately moot this object. The Town Council of Birmingham was an important body, and his hon. Friend need not be under any apprehension that the Commissioners would refuse to listen to suggestions offered by it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 32 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Framing of scheme).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONproposed an Amendment, the object of which was to enable an alternative scheme to go before the Committee of Council together with the scheme of the Commissioners.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the question had been much considered in Committee, and he could only repeat that any school which really wished it would be able to bring their representations before the Government.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider before the Report whether there might not be formed another exceptional class of important schools like Uppingham, but having only small endowments.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the hon. Member would waive the Amendment, he would talk the matter over with him, and see whether the suggestion could be adopted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Approval of Committee of Council on Education).
  MR. GOLDNEY MR. GOLDNEY moved, in page 12, line 16 at end, to add—
  "Provided, That where the Committee of Council on Education have not approved any scheme relating to an endowment, the Governing Body of which may under this Act prepare and submit a draft of a scheme before the Commissioners prepare a draft of a scheme, such Governing Body may, within three months after notice of such non-approval (if within one month thereafter they give written notice of their intention to the Commissioners), submit to the Commissioners an amended scheme; and the Commissioners shall consider the same before they frame and submit another scheme relating to the same endowment, mid such amended scheme of the Governing Body, if approved by the Commissioners, shall be adopted and proceeded with by them as if it were a scheme originally framed by themselves."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the proviso would make the large endowments work better with the Commissioners he should be glad to adopt it.
  Proviso agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Appeal to Queen in Council).
  MR. G. GREGORY MR. G. GREGORY moved to omit in the fourth section the words "if the Governing Body are the petitioners."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the matter was well discussed by the Select Committee, and decided by a majority of 14 to 2.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he feared that the clause as it stood would not let in those persons from whom a charity had been entirely removed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Exception as to schemes for endowment under £100).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman would consent to strike out this clause from the Bill, so that the schemes in regard to the smaller charities might be laid before Parliament like the rest. The Commissioners would then be armed with stronger powers—the Act would work a great deal better.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley).
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he thought the effect of the clause would merely be to give

  1781
  facilities for the conduct of business, by removing the necessity for going through tedious formalities in the case of endowments under £100. Particular eases might, of course, be brought under the notice of Parliament by hon. Members who took especial interest under them.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he was of opinion that, under any circumstances, it would be desirable to have accurate information as to how all these charities were dealt with. Whether the schemes should be laid before Parliament or made known in some other manner might, perhaps, be a subject for discussion; but there could be no doubt that the public was entitled to ask for full and trust worthy information as to each scheme that was proposed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the clause was inserted after great consideration, and with the belief that it would be an act of kindness to the small endowments to simplify the proceedings. Still the suggestion of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) deserved consideration, find he should be glad before the bringing up of the Report to frame some provision which might be satisfactory to his hon. Friend.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that this clause had not been so carefully considered by the Select Committee as most of the other provisions of the Bill. The exception ought, in his opinion, to apply only to endowments of £40 or £50, the proposed figure being far too high.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, his object was to have the scheme laid before Parliament and not before the Queen in Council.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could see no good reason why these schemes should not be laid before Parliament. There would be no waste either of time or money in doing so, and some power ought to be given to persons interested in the charities to challenge the mode in which the endowments were to be applied.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should be glad of an opportunity of conferring with some of his Colleagues and the draftsman of the Bill respecting the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) as to giving publicity to the conduct and management of the endowments. He thought the subject might be put off till the Report.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was strongly in favour of the schemes for these schools being laid before Parliament; but he thought the object might be attained by omitting the two lines requiring them to be laid before Her Majesty in Council.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would agree to the Amendment. It involved a matter not of detail but of principle. Why should not these schemes be laid before Parliament as well as inclosure and drainage schemes?
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he was strongly of opinion that the schemes relating to small endowments ought to be laid before Parliament. This would give confidence and satisfaction to those interested.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, justice could not be done unless the Government and the House adopted some definite scheme, by which the cases of these charities in groups should be submitted to the House in sufficient numbers and involving property of sufficient amount to render it worth the while of the House to attend to the question. It was a vicious thing to create indefinite patronage, by destroying a legal right and substituting a claim to be satisfied or refused at the discretion of the Government of the day. He hoped that, after dealing with these charities as they might think fit, the Government would eventually provide for the restitution of legal action in place of patronage.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if the cases were gone into it would be found that this proposition was no kindness to the smaller schools and towns. He hoped an impression would not go abroad that there was any desire to ride roughshod over any of these endowments. The Government would accept the suggestion which had been made, and consent to omit from the clause the words "such scheme may be approved by Her Majesty in Council without being laid before Parliament." He did not wish, however, to preclude himself from proposing a lower limit than £100 on the Report.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the suggestion of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Newdegate) that they should follow the precedent adopted in Inclosure Acts, and include the charities in ques-

  1783
  tion as Schedules in Acts of Parliament was worthy of consideration. Cases would occur now and then which required to be looked into.
  Words struck out.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

GAME LAWS—(SCOTLAND.)

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [11th May], "That the Select Committee on Game Laws (Scotland) do consist of Eighteen Members:—(Mr. Loch):—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "That the," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for the appointment of the said Committee be discharged,"—(Sir James Elphinstone),—instead thereof:—Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to know when the adjourned debate was to come on? Her Majesty's Government had allowed the matter to be shelved on account of an Amendment moved from the other side. He wanted to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take the matter in hand?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the question was too keenly contested to be satisfactorily dealt with this Session. On the part of the Government he would undertake to consider the question with a view, if possible, to bring forward a Bill on the subject next Session.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to know whether the question was finished? He begged to move that the Order be discharged.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he hoped that the Order would be allowed to continue on the Paper until Her Majesty's Government should be able to give some definite pledge respecting it.
  MR. LOCHsaid, the promise of the Government was so vague that there could be no confidence in it. His own feeling was to press for the nomination of the Committee.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Loch) to allow the Order to be discharged.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the hon. Member might rely on the promise of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  MR. LOCHsaid, he would consent to the Order being discharged.
  Order discharged.

PARLIAMENT—DUBLIN CITY WRIT.

  MOTION FOR NEW WRIT.
  MR. NOELsaid, he rose to move for a new Writ for a burgess to serve in Parliament in the room of Sir Arthur Guinness, unseated on petition.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to make out a new Writ fur the electing of a Citizen to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Dublin, in the room of Sir Arthur Guinness, baronet, whose Election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Noel.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words after the word "that," in order to add "leave be given to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the freemen of the City of Dublin." He proposed to take that course in accordance with the opinion which he had ventured to express in the discussion on the Motion for an Address to the Crown for the issue of a Commission under the Act of 1852, to inquire into the extensive bribery which was alleged to exist. On that occasion he stated that he felt considerable doubt whether the peculiar terms in which the learned Judge had reported in the Dublin inquiry brought the case within the provisions of the Act of 1852, and he only voted for the Motion in consequence of the strong opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England that it was right for the House to address the Crown, although there were some doubts as to the terms of the Report. He then said that, having received the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Petition, the House ought not to issue a Writ for the City of Dublin until it, in some way or other, had vindicated its own authority and taken some means for purifying the constituency of Dublin of that portion of it among which the learned Judge had reported that extensive bri-

  1785
  bery prevailed. The House of Lords, as they knew, had declined to concur in the Address, and, consequently, no Commission under the Act of 1852 could now issue. After the opinion which he had expressed he had no right, nor did he think anyone else had, to complain of the course taken by the House of Lords. Noble and learned Lords of very great authority stated that, in their opinion, there was much doubt as to the case falling within the terms of the Act, and that if the Commission did issue its authority might have been disputed. Under these circumstances the case came again before the House of Commons; they had the Report of the learned Judge on the table, and it was for them to say what course they were to take. The hon. Member who moved the Writ (Mr. Noel) seemed to think that the House should leave the Report unheeded, and allow the freemen of Dublin an opportunity of again committing these corrupt practices, in which case they might go on for ever, so long as the general constituency was not tainted. That House and Parliament, however, had, in passing the Act of 1852, not divested itself of the power of dealing with a case of this kind, and they would exhibit themselves in a discreditable light to the country if they were to declare that because the case did not fall within the Act of 1852 they were powerless in the matter. Mr. Justice Keogh reported that eleven freemen, who were named, had received bribes, and that there was evidence that between twenty and thirty, whose names he could not give, had also received bribes; that over 200 freemen had signed a colourable agreement to serve Sir Arthur Guinness gratuitously, and that a considerable number of them had afterwards applied for payment. He also added that corrupt practices had not generally prevailed amongst the constituency apart from the freemen. It was creditable to the general constituency of Dublin that they were free from the taint attaching to the freemen, among whom there was no doubt that extensive bribery prevailed. The late Government in passing the Act which transferred the jurisdiction in election ceases from Committees of that House to Judges of the Superior Courts, took credit for an earnest desire to provide an effectual check to bribery, and to facilitate its punishment, and
  1786
  therefore, he observed with some surprise, that the hon. Member for Rutlandshire (Mr. Noel), who was connected with the party opposite, had moved the Writ in this case, for his doing so seemed to imply an opinion that this corruption should go on unpunished. The Amendment he now moved had nothing to do with the question whether freemen generally should retain their franchise, but only applied to the freeman of Dublin, among whom the Judge reported that extensive bribery prevailed. The House had a precedent exactly in point, for, in 1848 an Election Committee reported that gross and systematic bribery prevailed among the freemen at Great Yarmouth, and the House, in consequence, passed a Bill for disfranchising those freemen, only the faintest opposition being made to the measure in either House of Parliament. In the present case, though the same words were not used, it was not to be supposed that gross and systematic bribery had not prevailed among the freemen of Dublin. The freemen voters in Dublin were about 2,700, in a constituency of about 13,000. Many of them—he had been told at least two-thirds—had other qualifications for the franchise, and he proposed merely to disfranchise the freemen as such, leaving those who were registered in respect of other qualifications—and many of whom he believed to be highly respectable—to exercise the franchise. He proposed also to introduce provisions into the Bill to enable those who had other qualifications, but for which they were not registered, to have their names placed on the registry with as little delay as possible. He therefore moved as an Amendment to the Motion for the issue of the Writ that leave be given to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the freemen of the City of Dublin.
  MR. O'REILLYseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "leave be given to bring in a Bill for disfranchising the Freemen of the City of Dublin,"—(Sir George Grey,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped that the House would approach this subject with something of a judicial spirit, and that no party spirit would enter into the debate. Primâ facie the right hon. Baronet

  1787
  (Sir George Grey) had made out a plausible case for the Amendment; but he thought, on closer examination, the House would come to the conclusion that it was not right to refuse to issue the Writ—not right either to Dublin at large or to the freemen in particular. It was a serious matter to leave the capital of Ireland, with its 250,000 inhabitants, halting, as it were, on one foot, with only half of its representation. Such a step could not be taken at any time except on strong grounds. But an issue most momentous to Ireland had just been submitted to the other House of Parliament. The Bill might be sent back to this House, and then most important conditions might arise, and it was especially important that on an occasion like this Dublin should, if necessary, be allowed to express its opinions in the fullest manner. From Judge Keogh's Report it was clear that by adopting the Amendment the House would be punishing the multitude who were innocent for the very few who were guilty. But would the House not also be stultifying itself? This House had lately agreed to address the Crown, asking for inquiry into the corruption, which was alleged to exist among the freemen, but the purport of the Amendment was that the House should proceed to disfranchise the freemen without any inquiry at all. Surely the House would see that, because the other House of Parliament had declined to address the Crown, it was not right to jump to a conclusion as though there had been inquiry and corruption had been proved. The right hon. Baronet had quoted a precedent, and he also would refer to several precedents. In the case of Sudbury a Committee reported that corruption was proved to have existed, but the House was not satisfied—a Commission was issued, and it, was only upon the Report of the Commission, declaring that bribery extensively prevailed, that Sudbury was disfranchised. So in the case of St. Albans, a Commission reported that bribery had long prevailed there, and on that Report the borough was disfranchised. Then there was the case of Galway, where a Commission was issued, and reported that corruption prevailed amongst the freemen. A Bill was introduced for disfranchising the borough, but it was argued there that you were punishing the innocent along
  1788
  with the guilty, and the Bill was withdrawn. At first sight the precedent of Great Yarmouth seemed to be on all fours with this case, but really a considerable distinction existed between the two cases. There the Committee reported not that "they had reason to believe" that bribery prevailed, but positively that gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed among the freemen, and that no Writ should issue until an Act had passed for disfranchising the freemen. Here the Judge did not report in any such positive way. The Act of Parliament presented him with an alternative mode of reporting. The Judge was required to report whether corrupt practices had, or whether there was reason to believe that they had, extensively prevailed at the election. Of course, the one phrase was much stronger than the other, and Parliament must have had some reason for drawing this distinction. Judge Keogh chose the weaker phrase, and said he had reason to believe that corrupt practices had prevailed among the freemen. This showed a feeling that the evidence was not such that he could report in a positive way, and it pointed to the necessity of further inquiry before any stop was taken to disfranchise these voters. Now the whole number of freemen was 2,700, and on examining the Judge's Report it appeared that there were but eleven persons reported by name as having been bribed, and from ten to fourteen others judicated as having been bribed by promises of employment. In all, only fifty-five persons were proved to have been bribed. The freemen of Dublin were not, as in other places, poor persons who wove likely to be bribed. Nearly 1,700 of them were described as persons quite above the possibility of their being bribed, including twenty-six admirals, generals, colonels, majors, privy councillors, and members of noble families; twenty-three fellows and students of Trinity College; forty-five clergymen, sixty-five medical men, together with barristers, stock brokers, gentlemen, esquires, booksellers, and engravers. It would, perhaps, be said that some of these persons had other qualifications, but they had not put themselves on the register for those other qualifications, because it was much less trouble to register as freemen. He had, he thought, said enough to make

  1789
  the House pause before they assented to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. The late Government had evinced every disposition to put down corruption, and had proved it by their acts. The House, in seeking to punish corruption, should not allow itself' to be led into an act of injustice by disfranchising a large body of electors, in consequence of the conduct, of a few individuals, and by deferring the election of a representative for so important a constituency as Dublin at this momentous period. He hoped, therefore, that the House would assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Noel) for the issuing of the Writ.
  MR. H. JAMESconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) when he appealed to the House to view this question in a judicial light, and free from any party considerations. There were three interests involved in this question—the first was the interest of the public, the next that of the constituency of Dublin, and the third was the interest of the freemen themselves. It appeared to him that in common justice to all three the Writ should not issue. Hitherto the laws they had passed against corruption had become a dead letter; and although at the last election they were able to threaten the new constituencies with Pains and Penalties if they broke the law, their threats would be treated with ridicule if they neglected to punish the offenders in the present instance. He was willing to give the late Government full credit for their exertions to put down corrupt practices; but if they did not go farther to effect this object it was futile to say that the decisions of the new tribunals had done anything towards remedying this evil. They had been told in "another place" that it would be wrong to issue a Commission. He said that they would be doing a great hurt and injury to the country by allowing this Writ to issue. Although it might be a matter of importance that the metropolis of Ireland should not be deprived, even for a few months, of representation in that House, it was of still greater importance that the Member for Dublin should be the representative of a pure and not of a corrupt constituency. As to the freemen, it might be a hard case for those who had voted purely, but hard cases made good
  1790
  laws. It was better that those few should be sacrificed than that the House should proclaim to every constituency that such doings should not be punished. The freemen would, he hoped, have the opportunity before the Bill passed of defending themselves, and proving, if they could, that extensive bribery had not prevailed among them at the last election. It was because he most earnestly desired to stay the course of those corrupt practices, which caused every man to look with terror at the next General Election, that he had ventured to express himself as he had done.
  MR. H. MATTHEWSsaid, that every one on that side was as desirous as hon. Gentlemen opposite of having a pure constituency, but they all agreed that in providing a remedy they ought not to proceed hastily or on insufficient grounds. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had forgotten the course of legislation on the subject. Since the Act of 1852 there had been two precedents which the right hon. Baronet had not referred to—Galway and Canterbury. In the case of Canterbury, it was urged that to disfranchise those whose evidence had proved the existence of bribery and their own participation in corrupt, practices was a breach of faith, and the argument was felt to be irresistible. In the case of Galway, it was proposed, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth now proposed, that the whole body should be disfranchised; but this plan of confounding he innocent with the guilty was felt to be even a still greater breach of faith. The provisions which formerly gave an immunity from all consequences to witnesses giving evidence of their own corruption had, however, been repealed by the Act of 1863, as far as political indemnity was concerned, and there was not the slightest difficulty now in disfranchising the particular offenders, instead of visiting their errors and shortcomings upon the class to which they belonged. The hon. Member had proposed this Amendment because the provisions of the Act of 1852 had not been complied with. This was going back to an old and unwise principle. The idea of there being any community between the few corrupt voters of this particular class and the vast majority who were politically pure was absurd, and it was at once impolitic and unjust to visit on the many the sins of the few. Although

  1791
  he felt that they all had an interest in keeping elections pure, they ought not to deal with a case like the one under debate by means of the extreme machinery of Pains and Penalties.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, that what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) had just said was quite opposed to his own experience of Dublin, and he had had a great deal of experience of it. In the year 1842 he stood for that city and was defeated. At the close of that election a Bill was put into his hands, and he was charged £4,500 for bribing 1,500 freemen; and this, too, without his having the slightest knowledge of what had been done. The bill was presented with as much coolness and cynicism as if it had related to the purchase of so many herrings. When he again stood for Dublin, he refused to give 1d. towards the bribing of these freemen, and the consequence was that the latter all voted for the other side. He hoped the Reformed Parliament, to show that they were in earnest in putting down corruption, would give their hearty support to the hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey).
  MR. VANCEsaid, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) had lost his seat for Dublin not through the corruption of the freemen, but because he had changed his political principles, He himself was first returned for Dublin in 1852; he was returned for it again in 1857, when a petition was presented against him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), were on the Committee which tried that petition, and he appealed to them whether there was any bribery proved against the freemen. The Committee, the majority of the members serving on it being Liberals, found that he had been duly elected. He was returned for Dublin again in 1859, and he did not hesitate to say that in those three elections for Dublin £50 had not been spent which could not be accounted for to the satisfaction of the most rigid auditor. He believed that the Judge, whose Report had been quoted, would nor have said what he did had he supposed, when making his Report, that an attempt would be made to disfranchise the freemen without farther inquiry.
  MR. O'REILLYquoted a passage
  1792
  from the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, in which the learned Judge made some rather severe comments on "young Mr. Vance," who had interested himself for Sir Arthur Guinness."
  MR. VANCEexplained that the gentleman so alluded to by the learned Judge was no relative of his, and that he had not even the honour of being acquainted with "young Mr. Vance."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) was without precedent. If it was the one that ought to be followed in these cases, why had Commissions been thought necessary in the cases of Bridgwater, Cashel, and other boroughs? If ever there was a case for legislation without further inquiry it was that of Youghal, where £40 per elector had been spent; but no proceeding's had been taken in consequence of that enormous expenditure, and even the publication of the evidence had been refused.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 215: Majority 46.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked whether it was possible that the House meant to disfranchise the metropolis of Ireland in order to please a private Member. The Government Benches were full, but not one Member of the Government had risen, he supposed owing to weariness. He therefore moved that this House do now adjourn.
  CAPTAIN DAMERseconded the Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that his rising would remove the only reason which the hon. and gallant Member had given for his Motion. The Government had been silent because they were entirely satisfied with the arguments of his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey).
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had no wish to disfranchise the metropolis of Ireland. He desired that the Bill might be passed as quickly as possible, in order that the Writ might be issued.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that the silence of the Government seemed to him

  1793
  very like an old Whig job; they could not make the Motion themselves, but they got an old Whig to do it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth had said that if the freemen of that borough were guilty of corrupt practices he should equally wish to see them disfranchised. But the right hon. Gentleman well knew that he was quite safe there; the freemen of Morpeth dare not give him any such opportunity.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, the character of his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth stood too high to need any defence. But the Conservative party would do well to show a bold front against corruption.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no wish to shield men guilty of corrupt practices; those who were guilty he hoped would be disfranchised; but the right hon. Gentleman, well knew that the Dublin freemen, all of whom he proposed to disfranchise, were, as a class, most respectable gentlemen, and his opponents in politics.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Knox.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 173: Majority 102.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. GREENE MR. GREENE moved that the debate be now adjourned. Anyone one who had heard the debate would think that those who sat on the other side of the House had the patent right for purity; but he asked whether just as many on their side of the House had not been guilty of bribery as had been guilty on his side of the House? Was Dublin to be deprived of its representative because fifty-five men out of 2,000 had been guilty of bribery? He was glad that this discussion had arisen, because it exposed the hollowness of Liberal purity.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the time had now arrived when the majority must yield to the minority. He hoped that on another evening milder councils would prevail.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.