Commons Sitting of 14 June 1871

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Francis Monckton, esquire, for Stafford County (Western Division).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Glasgow Boundary*; Sasines Register (Scotland)*.
Second Reading—Endowed Schools Act (1869) Amendment [55], put off; Landrights and Deeds (Scotland)* [84]; Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation* [143].
Select Committee—Metropolis Water (No. 2)* [166], nominated.
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation* [130–197].
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal* [164], and passed.
Withdrawn—Medical Act (1858) Amendment [72]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2)* [73].

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 55.]
(Sir John Lubbock, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Mr. Thomas Hughes, Mr. Rathbone.)
ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 55.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKrose to move that the Bill be now read a second time. He said that the main object of the measure was to repeal the religious restrictions contained in the Endowed Schools Act, 1869. That Act was passed partly on account of the very great abuses which had crept into the management of endowed schools, but mainly because it was felt that the whole system needed revision, and especially that many of the smaller foundations might advantageously be combined together; that

  3
  where several schools co-exist in one town, at present acting independently of each other, it was desirable that they should in some cases be united, in others be adapted to different educational grades, and occupy a definite position in relation to one another. Many schools, however, were excluded from the provisions of the Act, with the effect, in the opinion of many, of considerably curtailing the benefits intended to be given by it. In the first place, the Commissioners could only deal with any endowments originally given to charitable uses more than 50 years before the passing of the Act. Those who introduced that Bill accepted the 50 years as a reasonable period, but they saw no magic in the year 1869, and they proposed to make the 50 years a running period, authorizing the Commissioners to deal with any endowed school winch had been in existence 50 years. If the limit was right in 1869, it must be right in 1871. If the Endowed Schools Act had passed this year, the limit would have been 1871 instead of 1869. He now passed to their second proposal. Clause 14 of the Endowed Schools Act, which they proposed to repeal, excluded from the operation of the Act all Quaker schools, all Moravian schools, all cathedral schools, and all schools forming part of the foundation of any college in Oxford or Cambridge. As regarded the Quaker or Moravian schools, it was only fair to say that they heard no complaints of them; but they objected on principle that certain schools should be excepted, not because they were good, but because they belonged to Quakers or Moravians. Whether, however, those schools, or any of them, should on other grounds be excluded was a question not of principle but of detail, and could best be discussed in Committee. He passed on, therefore, to the next and most important provision of the Bill. The House would remember that, by Clause 17 of the Endowed Schools Act, it was provided that the religious opinions of any person, or his attendance or non-attendance at any particular form of religious worship, shall not in any way affect his qualification for being one of the Governing Body of any endowment. But Clause 19 excluded from the operation of that clause all cathedral schools, and—
  "All educational endowments the scholars educated by which are required by the express terms
  4
  of the original instrument of foundation, or of the statutes or regulations made by the founder, or under his authority, in his lifetime, or within fifty years after his death (which terms have been observed down to the commencement of this Act), to learn or be instructed according to the doctrines or formularies of any particular Church, sect, or denomination."
  Now, it was extremely difficult to ascertain whether a given school came within that clause or not. He was not on that point speaking without personal experience. Last Session an Address was presented to Her Majesty requesting Her Majesty to refer back the statutes of certain public schools to the Public School Commissioners, in order that the Commissioners might apply that clause in framing the new statutes for those schools. To that Her Majesty graciously consented, and, as one of the Commissioners, it became therefore his duty to consider that matter. To take, for instance, the case of Harrow, which had been before the House on the previous evening, it seemed to him that it was most difficult to decide whether it was covered by the clause or not. Nor was that by any means an exceptional case. He was informed that there were some scores of cases now before the Endowed Schools Commission, as regards which two perfectly reasonable men might come to opposite conclusions; in many of which, therefore, undoubtedly law suits would arise, the expenses of which would doubtless be paid out of the endowment. But, further, to bring a school within the clause, the terms laid down by the founder must have been observed down to the present time. That was surely a most inequitable provision. While restraining the deliberate and well-considered action of Commissioners, carefully selected for their wisdom, their character, and their acquaintance with the position and functions of endowed schools, it not only absolved, but justified and adopted changes which had crept in through the negligence, the incompetence, or the mala fides of accidental trustees; it perpetuated the changes made through ignorance, neglect, or accident, while forbidding any alteration which was well-considered and adopted after mature deliberation. But where the operation of the clause was clear, it in many cases led to very great inconvenience. For instance, Bristol had about 20 endowments, with an income, in round numbers, of £17,000

  5
  a-year. It would manifestly be very advantageous to bring these schools under one management; that would result in greater economy, greater harmony, and probably better management; but it was prevented by Clause 19. At Leicester, again, there was a very similar state of things. He would not weary the House with other examples, but rested this portion of his case on the opinions of three Gentlemen pre-eminently qualified above all others to speak on that point—namely, Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Hobhouse, and Canon Robinson the Endowed Schools Commissioners, whom he had consulted, and who had favoured him with their views on the subject. Thus it would be seen that all three Commissioners, not speaking, indeed, officially, but expressing their individual opinions, characterized the clause as arbitrary, inconsistent, and inconvenient; two of them wished to see it repealed, and the third, while approving the theoretical principle on which it was based, was unable to defend it on account of the great inconvenience it involved. They had it, then, on the highest authority, that the effect of Clauses 14 and 19 was to exclude a large proportion of endowments from the operation of the Act, and to that extent to leave matters as they were before the Endowed Schools Act was passed. What, then, was that condition? The Endowed Schools Act was passed because a thorough change was imperatively required. At one school, which had an income of £000 a-year, and where the children were clothed as well as taught, the trustees paid the master £30 a-year, the mistress £15, and distributed £78 a-year among the parents for allowing the children to come to school. Huntingdon School, with a comfortable boarding-house, an ample detached schoolroom, a good cricket-ground, and three masters, had only 16 pupils; and even as regards them, we are told that their knowledge of all but elementary subjects appeared to be worthless. At Normanton School, the Assistant Commissioner found 11 children following their own devices, while the master was reading Bell's Life. At Bosworth, with a net income of £792 a-year, there were three boarders only. At Thame, with an endowment of £300 a-year and two masters, there was only one scholar. The late master of Whit-gift's Hospital at Croydon held the post
  6
  for 30 odd years, and never had a pupil he whole time. The School Inquiry Commissioners reported other cases, which, however, he would not occupy the time the House by quoting. It was, moreover, evident that the law could do little to remedy that state of things. Berkhampstead School, for instance, was in Chancery for 125 years, during which there were three decrees, five Masters' reports, and 14 orders in Chancery. At Kirkleatham, again, there was no school for 50 years; the lady of the manor occupied the building and paid the income of £50 a-year to her steward. At last the Court of Chancery interfered and approved a scheme, but no one communicated it to the trustees, and for 10 years nothing was done, until the state of things was brought to light by an accident. Of course these were exceptional cases; but under the head of "wasted endowments" the School Inquiry Commissioners placed foremost "those endowments for education which are too small to be of any real service by themselves." They state—
  "The small endowments described in the second chapter, consisting of a few pounds a-year, without even a building for a school, can be made of no use, except by consolidation or enlargement. Wherever there are several such endowments in one town or parish, they ought to be united, the trustees of each being represented on the joint trust."
  And, again, in the concluding pages, they recommended that when there were in any one town or parish more than one educational endowment, they ought to be brought into relation with each other, and they said that it constantly happened that such endowments, though capable, if worked in concert, of conferring great benefits on the place, were either useless, or even mischievous, because they were divided; and that the endowments would do far more good if so managed as to work in harmony. He did not rely mainly on individual cases of abuses for proposing this alteration of the law, because it was only fair to say that as regarded the great number of the endowed schools, those who had the management of their funds had acted to the best of their ability, and he should be sorry to be supposed to be casting a slur on those gentlemen who had taken part in the management of these institutions. If it was argued that they had no right to alter the dispositions of testators, he could not do better than quote the words

  7
  of one whose opinion would be received with respect by all sides in that House—Lord Hatherley, who, in answer to Lord Lyttelton, said—
  "I think there ought to be a power of revision after a certain number of years—say 60 years—of any (charitable) disposition a person may choose to make of his property, because you do not allow a man to dispose of his property in favour of his great grandchildren; he cannot do it for more than a life in being and 21 years after that."
  And the Endowed Schools Commissioners, all men of the highest eminence, quoted with approval a passage from the Report of the Popular Education Commissioners, in which it was stated that—
  "The power of posthumous legislation exercised by a founder in framing statutes to be observed after his death is one which must, in reason, be limited to the period over which human foresight may be expected to extend. …. By the law of England, and by the law of nature, a man is incapable of making a perpetual disposition of his properly. The State suffers him to exercise an indefinite power over the land for the purpose of foundation; and in so doing it is not only entitled but bound to secure the interests of future generations, which can be done only by retaining the power of modifying the founder's regulations, when necessary, to suit the requirements of succeeding times."
  If it was said that such a measure as that now proposed would tend to discourage future endowments, he would only reply that it would be well to check foolish testators from tying up their property, and that wise ones would be glad to feel that their dispositions would be modified from time to time, so that their liberality might produce the greatest amount of good. Moreover, the fact was that from the nature of things the schools were altered. There were very few schools indeed in the statutes of which large alterations had not already been made. Mr. Fearon, who carefully examined into that point, could not find one single school in his district which was exactly what the founder meant it to be. These alterations had sometimes arisen from mere neglect, and sometimes been made by the Court of Chancery; but they had been so large and so numerous that to allow them to stand, and refuse to change any further really meant that they were to pay respect to changes introduced by chance or carelessness, or at best on very imperfect information, but to refuse to introduce those which a general and systematic survey of the facts showed to be really needed. The present Bill, if adopted by the House, would
  8
  still leave testators ample—nay extraordinary—powers. They would still be able to regulate the expenditure of their money for 50 years—for no less than half-a-century—after their death. In other matters it was universally admitted that the dead could not be permitted to tyrannize over the living; that property was not the property of the dead, but of the living; and that each generation should be allowed to manage its own affairs. In family arrangements they knew that settlements were limited to lives in being and 21 years afterwards; and the "dead hand" had become proverbial. There were, no doubt, many who regarded endowments for religions education as something sui generis, and who thought it sacrilege to touch any such bequests; yet some of those legacies would be admitted, on all hands, to be useless or even mischievous. Years ago a sum of money was left to found an annual Walloon sermon at Norwich; such a sermon was preached every year, and, for aught he knew, might be so still; yet, no one at Norwich, now spoke Walloon, nor could any English clergyman be found who was acquainted with that dialect, so that the preacher learned the sermon by heart, and solemnly delivered in church a discourse which no one, not even he himself, could understand. Again, some years ago, a sum of money was left to be spent in propagating Joanna Southcote's peculiar tenets. In consequence of some informality that will was happily set aside, and now scarcely any one believed in Joanna Southcote; but if there were an endowment of £10,000 a-year to support her views, no doubt a certain number of persons would persuade themselves that they did. He presumed they would all admit that such an endowment as that would be simply mischievous. But an opinion which after 50 years' nursing had acquired so little strength or vitality that it could not maintain itself, must be either erroneous or, at any rate, unsuited to the mental condition of those to whom it had been taught. There was an old saying that Magna est veritas et prevalebit; and it was true that the progress of mankind was towards truth; but that progress was slow; the majority of nations were far indeed from enlightened views on religious matters; and, in our own case, if 20 theological systems were

  9
  taught by endowments, they tended to strengthen and artificially prolong the existence of 20 systems, 19 of which were necessarily wrong. In fact, endowments for the maintenance and propagation of particular opinions were peculiarly mischievous, and everyone would admit that that was the case as regarded every such system except his own. Endowments in support of religion—endowments which tended to raise the character without fettering the intellect of man—stood, of course, on a very different footing from endowments in favour of a particular set or system. In science they had chairs—say of geology or astronomy; but no one dreamt of founding endowments to support particular theories or systems. Everyone admitted such endowments would retard the progress of science and injure the very cause they were intended to serve. They had realized the truth that it was wrong to persecute those who differed from them; they had still to learn that it was equally mischievous to bribe. Such a course tended to degrade and corrupt truth, and to poison religion at the very source. He should regret if the Government felt it to be their duty to oppose the Bill, because the measure now before the House did but carry out and apply to endowed schools the principle of the University Tests Bill—a principle so often affirmed in that House by overwhelming majorities. Moreover, the Government had themselves brought in a Bill—the Charity Commissioners Bill—which went beyond anything contained in the present measure. The Government proposed that, if the Charity Commissioners found that from any cause any given charity was productive of inconsiderable benefit, they might frame any scheme which they might deem best calculated to further the general objects for the promotion of which the charity was founded; and especially, under Clause 6, charities might be consolidated. Thus, then, he proposed to do in the case of schools exactly that which the Government themselves thought was right in regard to other charitable foundations. Perhaps he might be told that the Endowed Schools Act was a compromise, but he would urge on the House that since that Act became law the condition of things had been altogether altered by the passage of the Elementary Education Act. Since the duty of providing
  10
  for the elementary education of the people had been thrown on the ratepayers, endowments devoted to the maintenance of elementary education practically tended in the main, not to promote education, but to lighten rates. That was a very desirable object no doubt; everyone was anxious to lighten rates, but this ought not to be done at the expense of education. The Elementary Education Act had, in fact, given to such funds an effect never dreamt of by the founders. It appeared to him, then, that the present measure should be supported alike by those who held most strongly the inviolability of endowments, and by those who wished to see them applied, and, if necessary turned, to the best account. How, then, could they best be utilized? Most of those who took an interest in education would agree with a Resolution proposed by the Bishop of Exeter, at a county meeting held in that city, and supported by many influential Conservatives, namely—
  "That the educational organization of the county, so far as endowed schools are concerned, should consist of schools of different grades, so connected together by exhibitions, that the progress of the deserving scholar from a school of the lower grade to one of a higher grade may be provided for and facilitated."
  The main object of the present Bill was to render that possible, and he hoped therefore it might receive some support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the words of Professor Huxley, "we shall thus make a ladder from the gutter to the University," and though by some that was called spoliation, confiscation, and robbery of the poor, such language could not, he thought, be used by those who really understood what was proposed, as it was obviously for the benefit of the poor; it would throw open these charities to those who really deserved them; the poor would obtain the benefit of those endowments as the reward of industry rather than of solicitation, by their own merits and not by the favour of others. Genius was found alike in all ranks and classes of the community; even now it had in some cases forced a way for itself against all difficulties and obstacles; but, alas! in others it had unfortunately been lost to them. Under the system which it was the object of the present measure to extend, they would have throughout the country schools of different grades connected together by scholarships and exhibitions; they would

  11
  thus reward not ability alone but industry as well, and where intelligence and industry went together, every child, no matter what his station in life might be, would have the opportunity of obtaining the best education which the country could afford; an opportunity which would not only conduce greatly to his own advantage, but also, as he believed, to the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he would second the Motion. He must express his admiration of the scheme of the Endowed Schools Act. It was eminently calculated to raise the higher education of the country to a point which they would all be proud of in the future; but it had been found that the Act contained some clauses which were extraordinary exceptions—which were contrary to the spirit of that measure. He thought 50 years sufficiently long to bind the wishes of any testator; but, if not, he would not object to extending the time to 60 years. He believed the object in view could be best carried out by putting the best men in the country at the head of the foundations, and that was what was being done under the Endowed Schools Act. It would be in entire accordance with the Act to place under them schools of all denominations, and to enable them to deal with any endowments which had been in existence for more than 50 years in such a way as they might think most desirable. It might be said that a great measure which had been so recently passed, as the Act of 1869 had, should not be disturbed. He admitted that to be right as a general rule, but was of opinion that when such a blot in that measure existed as these mischievous tests were, they ought to be removed as soon as possible.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  MR. PEASE, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, said, he was of opinion that the cause which both he and the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had at heart would receive more benefit from the rejection of this measure than it would from its being passed into law. The chief objection which he had to this
  12
  Bill was that it proposed to deal with the Endowed Schools Act, which was the result of a compromise that House was bound to respect, and which had been accepted as a final settlement of a most vexed question, in which both sides of the House had taken a very warm and decided interest. And, moreover, the proposal of the hon. Baronet, which would bring any endowment under the provisions of the Act, immediately after such endowment had completed 50 years of existence, and which would both change the Governing Body and the whole scheme of education, would go to the extent of preventing all endowments for the future. The peculiar class of endowed schools with which the hon. Baronet proposed to deal were, as far as educational matters were concerned, actually within the scope of the Endowed Schools Act, the Governing Bodies of such schools alone being exempted from its operation. According to the evidence taken before the Convents Committee, there were 65,000 Roman Catholic children in this country, and 4,000 in Scotland, being educated at schools which would not come under the Endowed Schools Act, or any other Act, because the moneys by which they were supported were applicable to other purposes than the schools, and all training schools for ministers were intentionally omitted from the Act. But under the 14th clause, which the Bill under discussion proposed to repeal, in schools under the Dean and Chapter and schools connected with Quakers and Moravians, the whole scheme of education might be altered and re-modelled, though the Governing Bodies could not be interfered with. There were practically eight schools connected with the Society of Friends, among which was the admirably-conducted Quakers' School at Ackworth, in Yorkshire, which would be affected by this Bill; they afforded accommodation for 812 scholars; they had at present 770 inmates; their annual income was £21,000, of which £3,900 was derived from endowments. The children were educated for about £28 a-head, of which about £3 was supplied by endowment. To make those endowments available for the public was not in accordance with the intention of the founders, or of those who had kept up the schools and had extended their usefulness, and no scheme which could be devised by the Commis-

  13
  sioners could make those schools more beneficial for the purpose of education, or could introduce more efficient management. Under this Bill those schools would gradually coma within the scope of the Endowed Schools Act, the last one fulling in in 1892, and the effect would probably be to diminish, the interest taken in these institutions, and to break up their whole machinery of education, which now worked so efficiently and satisfactorily. If denominational endowed schools were to be brought within the operation of the Endowed Schools Act to the extent desired by the hon. Baronet, a certain day ought to be fixed for that change to be carried out generally, instead of such schools being allowed to drop in one by one at the expiration of the 50 years of their existence. It would, at any rate, be advisable, before passing such a measure as this, for Parliament to wait and see whether the schemes to be proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners under the Act were acceptable to the country. If the hon. Baronet thought that this measure would do away altogether with the denominational character of the people of this country he was very much mistaken, because the tendency of the general feeling of the people was the other way. If this Bill were to be passed, the practice of holding money for denominational purposes in secret trust, such as was practised by Roman Catholics and Moravians, which was a most objectionable and immoral one, would be largely increased. He thought, moreover, the introduction of the present Bill highly objectionable, seeing that the scheme which it sought to amend had not been fairly tried, having been in operation only two years; and it was calculated to cause a greater evil than it professed to cure.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must regard the introduction of the Bill as a misfortune, inasmuch as it was an attempt to tinker the Endowed Schools Act, the whole machinery of which it would throw out of gear. The Act in question had been carefully considered by a Select Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) had won his spurs by the courtesy and conciliation he displayed in conducting it through that House. The measure had been accepted by the various denominations as a final settlement of the question, and it
  14
  would be unfair to reopen it almost before the ink with which the Endowed Schools Act was written was dry. Unless these denominational endowed schools were protected, Parliament would be encouraging the practice of secret trusts, that had been adopted by the Roman Catholics, in order to prevent their endowments from being dealt with by the State. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had ignored the great principle of the Act, and proposed that, though there was no absolute power on the part of the Commissioners themselves to make certain changes, power to do so should be given to the Governing Bodies themselves. Now, he must say, that the schemes which had been framed under the Endowed Schools Act were most admirable; the endowments of Christ's Hospital, for instance, being proposed to be dealt with in such a manner that 5,000 children in the City would be educated by their means. It would be most undesirable to interfere with those schemes, and to unsettle people's minds again upon a subject which had been disposed of by a satisfactory compromise, more especially when everyone was endeavouring to enter into the spirit of the Act, and to carry out its provisions effectually. As to the dress of the Bluecoat School, to which some persons objected, for the last century or more it had been a great police regulation or protection to the Bluecoat scholars throughout that great City, thereby securing their good behaviour, for no instance could be shown of a boy from that school getting into disgrace when rambling about at holiday-time, or out of school-hours. The governors of that school had done every dung to promote the education and preserve the health of the scholars. Their health was better preserved than that of the scholars in any public school in the kingdom. If the governors were satisfied with the dress, and the scholars themselves took a pride in it, he (Mr. Goldney) thought no one ought to object, to if, unless he could show that some ill result had been occasioned by it. The Act of 1869 ought to have a fair trial. He hoped this Bill would be withdrawn, because he believed it would work unsatisfactorily, and cause very great confusion. He begged, therefore, to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day sis months."—(Mr. Pease.)
  SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the operation of the Endowed Schools Commission had given anything like unqualified satisfaction throughout the country. He trusted that the House would not place more difficulties in the way of the Established Church by passing this Bill, which would enable the Commissioners to extend the benefits of Church of England endowments to Nonconformists and Roman Catholics. The Act of 1869 had produced the greatest dissatisfaction. In rural parishes in his own neighbourhood the greatest apprehension had been caused with reference to small charities that had been enjoyed for two centuries according to the intentions of the founders, by the Commissioners coming down to a great town in the district and threatening that all these small endowments should be diverted from the purposes to which they had been originally devoted, and be made to form part of a fund for the support of a magnificent public educational institution, which they proposed to establish in some central town. Until he had ascertained the objects of the Bill, he entertained the greatest hope that it was a Bill not to enlarge, but to restrict the powers of the Commissioners. The Commissioners had come to the district in which he resided to cast their shoe, as it were, over the whole of it, and make a washpot of every kind of endowment in the rural parishes, for the purpose of establishing another Harrow at Wrexham, in which the shopkeepers, clerks, miners, and colliers in Wrexham were to be taught Greek and Latin at the expense of the inhabitants of all the surrounding humble rural parishes. The trustees of charities that were not devoted to education were told that if they would only be foolish enough to surrender their trusts to the Endowed Schools Commissioners the latter had power to accept those trusts. He knew a clothing charity, the income of which was devoted to the giving of clothing to poor people at Christmas, but if the Commissioners had their way the property of that charity would be devoted entirely to the building of a grand educational
  16
  establishment at Wrexham. He entirely objected to that mode of administering the Endowed Schools Act. No doubt the Endowed Schools Act was good in many respects, and would greatly benefit the cause of education if judiciously and carefully administered; but if those who were intrusted with its administration setup in their enthusiasm schemes for raising education to a higher pitch than it had ever reached in any country, except, perhaps, in ancient Athens, they would spoil the good that the Act might otherwise accomplish. He (Sir John Hanmer) himself was adverse to the principle that the intentions of founders were not to be respected. Besides the foundations of kings, nobles, and others, there were many cases where "John Jones, labourer," or men in a similar position in life, had left £10 to their own parishes, and it would be unjust to apply those endowments to some other place. The argument that because they sought to maintain these small charitable endowments they therefore wanted to save their own pockets was offensive. [Mr. ACLAND: It is true.] At any rate, he did not think there was any intention that under the Education Act such endowments should be swept away. He should have great satisfaction in opposing this or any other measure which proposed to increase the power of the Commissioners.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he thought, judging from the course of the debate, that no hon. Members were likely to support this Bill, except the hon. Mover and Seconder. And even the hon. Mover himself had failed to show that there was anything in his precipitate and premature amendment of a recent Act to remove the abuses he had enumerated. His object seemed to be to make a raid against the general principle of testamentary disposal of property, and against what some persons had called "superstitious will-worship;" and whose argument seemed to be that reverence could best be shown to the dead by entombing their wills as speedily as their bodies. The effect of the Bill would be to prevent persons leaving any more endowments to schools, with any definite religious intentions, and destroy the last vestige of respect for those which already existed. That would be a very serious result, because there was hardly any motive which induced men

  17
  to give their property for great national purposes so strong as motives connected with peculiar religious views. And the Bill went still further, for its principles were intended to be of universal application, although such public schools as Harrow and Eton were specially excepted from the Act of 1869. The Select Committee on that Bill was brought to a unanimous conclusion, mainly by the able management of the Vice President of the Council, who presided, and the intention, of that Act was as clear as possible. The 14th section, which it was proposed to repeal, provided that no new scheme should interfere with any will or deed made within 50 years of the date of the Act, so that, at least, what had recently been expressed should not be disturbed; and it was also intended that they should depart from the vague method of interpreting wills by inference previously adopted. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), who had entered Parliament since the passing of the Act, proposed to change it within 24 months, and to substitute for a fixed date of non-disturbance a running period, which would produce chronic uncertainty and accumulate litigation for ever. This attack on all specific educational endowments would be welcome by those who wished to do away with denominational schools. [Sir JOHN LUBNOCK said, he had no wish to abolish such schools.] The hon. Baronet's plan for promoting combinations of every species of schools together would have that effect. This Bill was one of those raids against the Church to which they were becoming accustomed. In front of the Church there seemed to have been placed a screen or blind, which was not very effective It was proposed to sweep into the general scheme the endowments of Quakers and Moravians, which were held to be distinctly private property; and in the same boat with them it was thought the equally private collegiate schools might be quietly swamped. Perhaps the most material portion of the Bill was the proposal to repeal the 19th section of the Act, which, provided that no new scheme should interfere with endowments wherever the scholars had been educated upon any particular doctrines or formularies. It was now proposed even to strip them of their speciality. The hon. Baronet ob-
  18
  served that, in some cases, the laches of trustees might have caused a break in the continuity of such instruction; and what the carelessness of trustees had allowed, the hon. Baronet recommended that the Commissioners should be bound to do. The proposal to combine educational endowments in one, where there was any specific religious character in the instruction, was, in fact, a proposal to secularize all schools in the kingdom. The Bill would strike a blow at the testamentary disposal of property, and even at the law of evidence; it would prevent further endowments of schools being made by any persons with religious views at heart, and destroy the respect felt by the House for any such past endowments.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, the Bill excited great alarm among those whom it affected, and he thought the extension of the powers of the Commissioners would defeat the objects aimed at. He believed that the 50 years' limit was a fair compromise, and that arrangement ought not to be upset. The House had not sufficient experience of the working of the Act. In many agricultural districts and many small towns the people were not yet sufficiently educated to draw fine distinctions between property left for charitable uses and private property, and when they saw endowments handed over to a body of gentlemen sitting in London who were practically irresponsible—[Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No, no!]—they would imagine that the rights of property were not very sacred. The right hon. Gentleman denied that the Commissioners were practically irresponsible, but a scheme proposed by the Commissioners became law if there was no discussion on it in the House within 40 days after it had been laid on the Table, and what sort of opportunity had the House had this Session of discussing a scheme proposed by the Commissioners? If the Commissioners were not practically irresponsible, let the right hon. Gentleman give the House a day for discussing a scheme proposed by the Commissioners.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he could testify to the patience and ability shown by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), as Chairman of the Endowed Schools Bill Committee, and felt bound to explain that the 13th and 19th clauses of the Act were the result of a compromise. The Act was intended to cure abuses and

  19
  to lay a foundation for a general scheme of middle-class education out of existing endowments, but not to revolutionize them. But if this Bill, which his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had introduced with the best intentions, but with too much zeal and energy, and with a view rather pre-historic than with reference to the historical conditions of the world should be adopted, the good foundation which had been laid for the future would be destroyed. His hon. Friend had said no endowments were made in favour of any particular class of science, and why should there be any endowment in favour of any particular religion? The answer was, science must in the nature of thing's be progressive; but every religious body that had faith in its creed believed that the truth of it was everlasting. He could from his own experience anticipate the mischievous effect of a running period of 50 years. He was one of the managers of a school liberally endowed by his mother for the elementary education of a certain parish in which he lived. It had been in existence 25 years, and if this Bill became law he might, 25 years hence, have taken from him that which had been a main pleasure and duty of his life. Probably every hon. Member knew of similar cases; and he would ask whether it was fair, equitable, or charitable to disturb such arrangements? If such a measure as the present over became law, it would be the inauguration of a period of inevitable confusion. His hon. Friend had asked what was the magic in the period 1869, but was there no magic in a period of contentment? The Bill passed in that year was one of the most complete Reform Bills ever passed, dealing as it did in the boldest manner with vested interests which the Elementary Schools Act of last year did not touch, and being at once creative and reformatory. In the face of that he would ask his hon. Friend to give people a period of rest, a little breathing time, a little space to see how the scheme would work. If that was done the great streams of charity which for many ages had enriched and fertilized English society would still continue to flow, and the spirit of faith which was their fountain and source would still exist, though, under, it might be, more enlightened influences than those which had in many cases guided its action. At all events, he trusted the
  20
  House would show significantly that it did not approve this measure.
  MR. ACLAND, as one who had served for three years on the Endowed Schools Inquiry Commission, and had also been a witness of the fair and conciliatory conduct of the Members of the Committee, wished, to say a few words on this question. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), who no doubt had brought forward this measure with the best intentions, would not press it to a division. The hon. Baronet, though hinting at his theoretical views on the separation of education from religion, which would place it on the same footing as the advancement of secular science, had not made out any case for alteration, nor had he shown that the Commissioners were impeded in carrying out the Endowed Schools Act by any executions which stood in their way. He know personally that the proceedings of the Commissioners, so far from exciting that alarm which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Flint Boroughs (Sir John Hanmer) had stated, had been received in that part of the country which he represented with the general concurrence of all parties, among whom he might mention, the Bishop of the diocese, the Earl of Devon, and the right hon. Baronet his Colleague (Sir Stafford North-cote), as well as many other gentlemen who had long attended to their duties as trustees of schools. Some 60 trustees meeting round a table had reasoned themselves into approval of the Act of 1869, and had agreed to accept the scheme of the Commissioners. It appeared to him that all that had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone, was in favour of the Act of two years ago, and that this Bill would give the Commissioners no assistance whatever. The four schools mentioned by the hon. Baronet, with every detail concerning them, might be brought before the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and they might, as had been said, turn every one of them into a girls' school in the Black Sea. He sympathized with the generous feelings with which the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) was instinct, and he thought the question of small endowments was one that should be most carefully considered. He could not sit down without

  21
  entering his protest against the tone taken by the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs, who had talked about an argument as "offensive," upon which he (Mr. Acland) had said that it was true. There were a number of endowments in England which were applied not for the benefit of the poor, but of the rich, and the rich were very fond of fighting their battles behind the shield of the poor. He could put his finger on cases in which the endowments of the poor had been converted to the uses of the rich, and with respect to which he should not perhaps, escape the epithet "offensive" even from hon. Members of that House. He knew himself a case in which the income from the endowment was £270 per annum, and all that came out of it were two primary schools far inferior to those raised by the clergy with the aid of funds provided by Parliament. He admitted there was some fear of the Commissioners treading upon delicate ground when dealing with the smaller endowments; and he most earnestly protested against the notion that to deal with endowments which would save gentlemen from paying their subscriptions, or, if they did not pay, would save their tenants from paying the rate, was confiscation. As to the Commissioners being irresponsible, that certainly was not the case, for they had to submit their proposals to the House, and he earnestly hoped that the fullest opportunity would be given for the discussion of those proposals.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that there was one argument which, although it had been incidentally mentioned, had not received, in his opinion, the full weight of consideration during this discussion that it merited. He objected to the doing away, or even to any needless extent interfering with the smaller denominational endowments. He spoke in the interests of the very poor, since it was by means of this class of endowments that education was opened at all to the poorest among those above the ranks of actual pauperism. Something had been said early in the debate about throwing open all such endowments to competitive examination. He objected to that; because just in proportion as they placed the disposal of such endowments in the hands of those who insisted upon competitive examination for everything, so did they interfere
  22
  with the prospects and place difficulties in the way of the poor child who was debarred from, or could not obtain, preliminary education sufficient to enable him to undergo the competitive test. Indeed, it had become a question in his mind whether the competitive examination system had not already been overdone, and he was quite convinced that to insist upon it as applicable to the classes of the poor concerning which he spoke, and whose benefit he advocated, would only have the effect of placing many of them in a position at once unfair and unreasonable. In order to enable a child to undergo a competitive examination with any prospect of success, some expense must previously have been incurred by the parents or friends of such child; but it was well known that in many of these smaller endowed denominational schools the child was taken in its earliest infancy upon what might be called "the foundation," and thus received such education as might be given to it. Something had been said in the course of the debate about the desirableness of making a ladder from "the gutter to the University." He feared that the Bill, if passed, might effectually destroy the first rungs of that ladder, and would thus completely prevent any attempted ascent of it by the very class for whose advantage it was idealized. If these small denominational endowments were treated in the manner proposed, where, he would ask, was the child of poor parents to obtain that preliminary education which alone could enable him to compete? It had been said that the hon. Member for South Durham was the representative in that House of the Quakers. However that might be, he (Mr. Wheelhouse) felt a very strong interest in the well-being of a society which had its scholastic establishment at Fulneck, a place equi-distant between the borough represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. W. E. Forster), and the one for which he himself had the honour to sit. The schools of the United Brethren, or, as they were generally termed, Moravians, were conducted in a, manner which could leave little to be desired, and everything which had been stated in favour of Ackworth was equally applicable to Fulneck. A good, plain, sound education, based upon the religious principles of the society, was

  23
  thoroughly imparted, and it would be the subject of sincere regret to him if any legislation were unnecessarily permitted to interfere with the government of an institution so efficiently conducted. Besides this, if the House of Commons were to be called upon to legislate anew, two years only after a compromise most carefully digested had been effected, the result would be to unsettle and unhinge everything1 so rapidly as to render it utterly useless. It could not be affirmed that the Act which it was now proposed to alter—whether one might agree with its principle or not—was not perfectly just. To show the care and caution which had been brought to bear upon the question during its discussion, he would only ask hon. Members to cast their eyes over the Report of the Committee., and they would be convinced that almost every aspect of the question had been most thoroughly considered, scrutinized, and sifted. Upon what ground, then, was the House now asked to undo the work of that Committee, and the Act founded upon it so far as these two sections were involved? They were sought to be repealed upon the hypothesis that by so dealing with them something would be done to throw all such endowments open to everybody. But he apprehended this would be better effected by keeping the denominational character of the schools clear and pure, than by the proposal of the hon. Baronet. It was true that another hon. Member had characterized this denominational feeling as being allied to what he termed "superstitious will-worship." But he (Mr. Wheelhouse) took leave to say, that if by the term. "superstitious will-worship" was to be understood a respect—or even if you like it, a regard—for the expressed intentions of the founder, all he could state was that he (Mr. Wheelhouse) was old-fashioned enough to participate very largely in such feelings. He believed that the knowledge held by a testator in this country that he could endow a school, impressed with the seal of his own denomination, did preserve, and that to a large extent, the current of benefactions. In proof that the Endowed Schools Commissioners had, or at any rate thought they had, by virtue of the Act as it now stood, ample powers to deal with the larger foundations, there was at that very moment on the Table of the House
  24
  a scheme with reference to Harrow. Without saying one word in regard to his views as to that particular scheme, he might observe that everyone know the foundation of John Lyons to be strictly denominational, and he believed, generally speaking, that it would be found, as time went on, a spirit of liberality pervaded all such institutions, and that as occasions and necessities arose they would invariably be re-modelled, so as to adapt themselves to the requirements of the ago. But, after all, he was particularly anxious once more to impress upon the House the fact that there was a class of children who received their primary education from the smallest of these foundations, and it would be far greater injury to that class to have such foundations dealt with in the manner proposed by this Bill, than it would be to leave them altogether alone.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he wished to say a few words in support of the Bill, because the voice of not a single hon. Member who had spoken in the course of the debate, except that of the hon. and learned Member for Frome and the hon. Mover, had been raised in its favour. The principle which lay at the root of the measure was one which of late years had been repeatedly acted on in that House; it was the principle of dealing with corporate property for the public benefit. That principle lay at the root of the Irish Church Act, of the Bill which his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) proposed to amend, and of the measure for the abolition of University Tests which was about to become law; and he was therefore surprised to find its rejection moved by an hon. Member sitting on the Liberal side of the House. He was astonished to hear the argument which had been used in regard to corporate property in land after what had occurred in recent years. He had often seen it urged that there might be another class of exceptions—that where the trusts had been faithfully fulfilled, there was a fair ground for exception. He did not deny that there might be such exceptional cases; but there was nothing in this Bill to prevent the Endowed Schools Commissioners from treating these exceptional cases in an exceptional manner. He thought that many of the objections made to the Bill were simply made because hon. Members had not given

  25
  much attention to it, and had not a very adequate idea of what its objects were. The object of the promoters of the Bill was simply to ask the House to say that these collegiate, University, Quaker, and Moravian schools should be treated in the same manner as any of the other schools that came under the operation of the Endowed Schools Act. In the interests of religion itself, nothing ought to be allowed to interfere with the improvement and progress of education, especially in the primary and middle-class schools, and it was time that Parliament made up its mind on the subject. He, however, did not understand the position taken up by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease), and other hon. Members. Yesterday the University Tests Bill was practically passed by Parliament, and the principles of this Bill were the same as the principles of that. But he hoped that on this, as on other questions, the Bill of a private Member might become the Bill of the Treasury bench, and the minority of to-day become the majority of to-morrow.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must deny that there was any analogy between this measure and the University Tests Bill, which, to his great satisfaction, had been practically passed in "another place." There was this great difference between the two cases—in the case of the Universities the Government regarded them as national, and wished to see them nationalized; but the exceptions in the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 were made because they referred to certain schools which did not belong to the public, and which it would be unfair to give to the public. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), who introduced this Bill, had shown the abuses which the Act of 1869 was intended to remove, and had mentioned several instances as illustrative of abuses which still existed. But not one of these schools so mentioned by the hon. Baronet would be affected by the present Bill. He had regretted that the hon. Baronet was not in the House at the time the Bill was being discussed, and he was reminded of his regret when listening to the hon. Baronet this morning, because if he (Sir John Lubbock) had been in the House at the time he would not only have given an eloquent support to the Endowed Schools Act, but would have seen the reason for the course
  26
  then pursued. He had remarked that the schools to which reference had been made were not excepted from the operations of the Endowed Schools Act; and it happened that the Commissioners were quite able to deal with the dress of the boys at Christ's Hospital if they chose, without further powers. This, however, was a small matter; he was not against the dress personally. Many persons believed that the boys were proud of it, and that, considering the temptations of the town, it might be desirable to maintain it. Passing to the Bill of the hon. Baronet, he said the Commission would rather be hindered than otherwise by any change in the term of years, because an alteration in this direction might necessitate a supplementary arrangement in the case of constitutions agreed on this or last year, and it was therefore advisable to adhere to the original date. The exceptions the Bill proposed to repeal were those relating to the cathedral schools and the schools of Quakers and Moravians. The hon. Baronet had said he was astonished to find these schools were exempted from the Act; it was his statement, however, that was surprising, because these schools were not exempted so far as regarded their teaching, the exemption relating solely to the constitution of the Governing Body. The case for excepting the Quaker and Moravian schools was very clear, and rested upon this—A school mainly supported by subscriptions from an existing body for the education of members of their body, but which happened to have some endowments added to it, while remaining subject to the central educational authority, under the direction of Parliament, as to providing a better quality of education, should be allowed to remain in the hands of that body. The noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said that the minority of to-day would be turned into the majority of the future; but he (Mr. Forster) maintained that, so long as the Government permitted denominations to make arrangements for the education of the children of their members, the Governing Bodies of these schools should consist of members of the denomination to which they belonged; for instance, it would be unfair to oblige the Quakers' schools to receive among its governors those who were not Quakers. It was

  27
  upon this principle that Parliament acted in dealing with the Endowed Schools Act, and any other course would, in fact, be giving to the whole community that which was provided by and only intended for a part, and no one could say there was any justice in acting in that manner. As regarded the cathedral schools, he denied that the conclusion arrived at was a compromise. An alteration had been made in the original Bill, but it was made in the direction desired by the hon. Baronet. As originally introduced, the Bill excluded the cathedral schools altogether; but an influential deputation interested in these schools desired that they should be included, not because they wanted the government taken from the Dean and Chapter, but because they wanted the assistance of the Government and the Commissioners to help them in improving the education at these schools. Their desire was complied with, and that assistance had been given. The schools which were exempted under the subsection were, in fact, not public schools within the real meaning of the term, and it could not be right to take hold of their Governing Body and by that means throw them open to the whole country. With regard to the 19th section of the Act of 1869, which the hon. Baronet proposed to omit altogether, that section followed two or three clauses which affected religious instruction in schools acknowledged to be public schools, and defined the different classes of schools. The hon. Baronet objected to the terms under which the schools were defined in the 19th section, and though he (Mr. Forster did not hold the definition up as perfect, he did hold it up as one that had received the utmost discussion, and which it would not be just to upset so soon after it had been settled. No doubt it would be easier for the Commissioners and the Government to reform the endowed schools if there were no section. 19, and if they could take all schools as public schools, without having to consider which were public and which were not; but they had to deal with facts as they existed. The definition of the 19th section excluded from the position of public schools those schools which had had a special denominational character attached to them by their founder, and which character had remained attached to them down to the
  28
  present time, and that seemed to be a perfectly fair definition. The proposal of the hon. Baronet to refuse to acknowledge the right of a man to make endowments for the special instruction of a special part of the community, and to divert such special endowments to the use of the general public, was not in accordance with his notions of justice; the principle involved in such a proposal was very different from that involved in the Endowed Schools Act. The promoters of the legislation of 1869 found that there existed throughout the country a vast number of public school endowments intended for the public which were either misused or altogether taken from the public, and they wanted to see that they were used aright in the one case, and given back to the public in the other. This was very different from taking endowments not intended for the public at large and handing them over to the public entirely. The hon. Baronet and he had a common object, and that was to get an effectual reform; but he asked the hon. Baronet whether on grounds of prudence it was wise so shortly after the Commission had been set to work to alter the law under which they acted. The Royal Commission was appointed in 1869 the Bill based on its Report was referred to a Select Committee, and very long discussions upon the measure ensued. Great differences of opinion were expressed because every interest was represented, and there was no doubt that no measure had been passed of late years in which all interests concerned were so fairly considered. The exceptions which had been made he considered a just arrangement, and in consequence of that just arrangement the Bill passed the Commons unanimously; the temporary Commission was now at work, and he asked the hon. Baronet whether it was prudent, to say nothing of fairness, to disturb the law regulating their labours before they had got thoroughly to work? The Commissioners were now deciding very important questions, as to how far certain sections should go, and it would be most unwise to alter the terms by which they had been guided hitherto. Besides the inconvenience to the Commissioners, a change after so short a time would detract from the stability of the measure and the respect with which an Act of the Legislature should be regarded. As the Department with

  29
  which he was connected would have the duty of carrying out the decisions of the Commission, he spoke with some concern upon the subject, because any change now made would materially increase the difficulties connected with the work of the Department, and proportionately obstruct Public Business. Under these circumstance he trusted the hon. Baronet would see the force of the practical objections he had raised and not divide the House.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, it was no use in crying over spilt milk, and it was too late to deplore the language and argument which now, he was sorry to say, they habitually heard from the Treasury bench, and, unfortunately, from his right hon. Friend who had charge of these questions. The speech of his right hon. Friend was an excellent one, but it would have been more consistent if it had come from the Opposition. ["Oh, oh!] Hon. Members cried "Oh," but unfortunately it was too true that speeches from the Treasury bench of late were usually applauded by the Opposition. That was their experience last Session, and that accounted for the not very encouraging condition of the Liberal party in the country. His right hon. Friend had defended, not the Bill of last Session, but the exceptions contained in that Bill, which were unwise concessions made by the Government to the opposite side of the House. How did his right hon. Friend say these exceptions came in? He (Mr. V. Harcourt) regretted to hear that it was in order that the Bill might pass unanimously.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had made no such statement; he had spoken of the "concessions," as the hon. and learned Member described them, as a just arrangement, and had remarked that, in consequence of that just arrangement, the Bill passed unanimously.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURThad understood his right hon. Friend to say that those concessions had been made as a matter of prudence, and that unless that had been done the Bill would never have been passed by the House of Lords, but that was not an argument that should be addressed to the House of Commons. The House of Commons had nothing to do with the question whether a Bill would be carried in the other House. But suppose there had
  30
  been an endowed school, whose endowment was to be applicable to a particular county or parish, would his right hon. Friend say that the Endowment Bill of last Session would not be applicable to it? He (Mr. V. Harcourt) held that the Bill would apply to it. What the Bill really did, and the concession which a Liberal Government really made, was this—that no school should be meddled with which was of a religiously denominational character. He was entirely at a loss to understand how his right hon. Friend distinguished this Bill from the University Tests Act. Were the endowments of the Universities not destined to a particular part of the nation? They were certainly specially destined, and therefore his right hon. Friend's assertion that no endowment of a particular part of the nation could be dealt with was unfounded. The true principle was that while you did not allow any individual to affect private property beyond a limited period after his death—namely, a life in being and 21 years afterwards—you should adopt a similar rule with regard to property destined for charitable and religious uses, and say that such property should not be tied up for ever, regard-less of what changes might meanwhile be made in Church and State, but that the uses for which it was destined should be liable to review after the lapse of 50 years. That was the principle of the Act of 1869, and the principle was as sound now as it was then. A founder ought to be presumed to desire that his endowment should be as useful 50 years after his death as it was at his death. At the latter period he might be the best judge of what was best; but he could not be the best judge 50 years afterwards, and it was not to the advantage of the public, or of any class of the community, that you should stereotype for ever the ideas of a person who lived 50 years ago. When they asked that a principle so reasonable, sanctioned by the House two years ago, should be adopted now, he confessed to a feeling of surprise that it should meet with opposition from a Liberal Government. It was true the Government were supported by some Liberal Members, but by whom? By the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease), who was a "chartered libertine" in education, for the interests of his particular denomination were protected

  31
  by a sub-section in the Act of 1869; by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), whose motive he would not discuss, for the peculiar circumstances of his town made it natural that he should resist interference with endowed schools; and by the official representative in that House of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Mr. Acland). That wag the combination of Liberals with Conservatives by which the Bill was to be defeated, find it was well that such a combination should be understood. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. B. Hope) had called upon the House not to shake men's confidence in posterity and in the fixity of endowments. After what had occurred within the last few years, the hon. Member must have greater faith than a grain of mustard seed, or else that faith must have been sorely shaken. But he was not surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member. What surprised him were speeches from the Treasury bench, which, if one shut one's eyes, might be supposed to come from the other side of the House. "Give us a little rest," said the hon. Member. Such an appeal from a Conservative was natural. The Conservatives were the party of rest, and it was a good thing that there should be such a party. But the Liberals did not profess to be a party of rest; they were the party of progress; and it was remarkable, therefore, that Liberal Members should be lectured by a Liberal Government, and told that they should rest and be thankful for measures passed some years ago. The tactics of the Ministry seemed to be these—When a considerable measure was under discussion, they told Liberal Members below the gangway—"Better take what you can get. You can amend the Act afterwards. For goodness sake, don't divide now! Afterwards they said, as in this case—"Don't disturb the settlement! In that way all the principles of the Liberal party were disappearing. Although no doubt existed that the supporters of the Bill would be beaten, he trusted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone would press his question to a division, for they would be beaten in asserting the true principles of the Liberal party; they would be beaten because the Liberal Government would be supported mainly by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were
  32
  sent there, however, not for the purpose of voting in majorities, but for the purpose of asserting principles which they believed to be sound and true, and the time would come when those principles would be accepted and acted upon by the Liberal party in Parliament.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped when the time came for the Liberal party to assort those principles, the Pope of the Liberal party, who had just pronounced so spirited an allocution, would be at the head of it. It was not for him to defend the Treasury bench from such attacks, but the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. V. Harcourt) had made a number of assumptions which seemed open to considerable doubt. Like some other hon. Gentlemen, he said "we, the Liberal party," as though the country was at his back. That reminded him of the answer made the other day by a child at one of the London schools. The child was asked where the wind came from, and at first replied "from the country," but immediately afterwards said "from the windmills." In the present instance the windmills fancied that they were the country, and that the wind all came from them. The hon. and learned Gentleman had sent a great blast against the Treasury bench. He (Mr. G. Hardy) wanted to know when the new principle was set up, that whenever there was a new argument advanced by the Government, some one was to get up from below the gangway and blame those above it with having sold themselves to the Conservative party? Every interest had been represented in the Endowed Schools Commission, and he could not admit that right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had made any concession with reference to the Bill of last year. What had been granted had been admitted by the President of the Council to be merely an act of justice Was it to be endured for a moment that enormous schools like those of Mr. Woodward, established for the benefit of a particular class as defined by their religious creed, should be subjected to changes in their Governing Body, upon the constitution of which the whole scheme was based? He admitted that endowments of which the nation was properly the trustee might undergo review, and that endowments should not be allowed to be used against public policy. It was not now necessary to examine how far this doctrine should be carried, but

  33
  in this particular instance the State was in no way precluded from interfering for the due regulation of the education given in these schools. As to the limit of 50 years, did the hon. and learned Gentleman want this country to be governed by a perpetual Commission, going about seeking what it might devour, after a foundation had lasted 50 years? Such a proposition was absurd and irrational. He would only say that he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman could be accepted as the representative of Liberalism. Everything illiberal and intolerant which had been attempted to be forced on the religious part of the nation came from that part of the House where he sat, and at the head of those who had attempted to force that illiberalty was the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, the reason he supported the Bill was because it would effect an improvement, the need of which had been practically experienced, particularly in the case of many of the smaller endowments throughout the country.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in reply, said, he was informed by those best qualified to form an opinion, that there was no large town in which these endowments existed in which the inconvenience of the clauses now sought to be repealed was not practically felt. As to large schools like those of Mr. Woodward, they would not be touched by the Bill. He believed the time would come when the principle of this measure would receive the full support of the liberal party.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 222: Majority 158.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
(Dr. Lush, Mr. Mundella, Dr. Brewer.)
MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 72.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. LUSH, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he must explain the circumstances attending the withdrawal of the Bill of last Session, by stating that it was in no
  34
  respect satisfactory to the profession generally; and since the Government had declined to bring forward a measure this Session, in consequence of the pressure of Public Business, therefore he had brought in the present Bill. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) had also introduced a similar measure, so that there were two Bills now before the House. No doubt he (Dr. Lush) brought forward this Bill from a professional point of view; but the interests of the public and the profession were intimately blended together. About 50 years ago considerable alteration was made in the mode of licensing medical men, and by the Act of 1858 a general Medical Council was nominated; but in its nomination the rights of the medical profession were ignored, because the members of the profession had no influence in that nomination. The Council, further, did not possess the confidence of the profession; and really their only power was to tax members of the profession for inserting their names in certain books. That taxation they had exercised to the amount of £60,000, extracted from the pockets of the medical profession, without giving any corresponding advantage. The present Bill was not of his own framing so much as the result of considerable thought on the part of medical men engaged in teaching and in medical literature. The first principle of it was, that the existing Council should be abolished, and the second, that the members of the Council elected in their place should be fewer. Not only was the change to affect the number, but the origin from which they were to spring. The Council under the Bill would be in number 12, instead of 24, and four would be nominated by the examining bodies, four by the Crown, and four by the great body of the profession. The third, and last, provided that before any medical man could practise he should pass one particular examination, representing the minimum of qualification, instead of their being, as at present, 19 examining bodies. Some of the examinations now passed were of a most inefficient character. There were anomalies in the present system; and what reason could there be, he would ask, why the University of Durham, for instance, should have the right to send a representative to the Medical Council? He believed that the standard of medical education

  35
  had been considerably raised of late years; but there was still great room for improvement, which, he thought, would be likely to continue, so long as the present very inadequate examinations were suffered to exist; and for that reason, if for no other, he trusted the House would consent to-give a second reading to the Bill he now proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Lush.)
  MR. JESSELsaid, that the present-Bill differed in a most important respect from the Government Bill of last year, which did not propose to put into the hands of the Medical Council, however elected, the right to nominate the Board of Examiners, without any security against an abuse of the power. The Bill, in fact, proposed a monopoly of examination, and all monopoly was objectionable; but if it were created, care should be taken to prevent it leading to a position of stagnation. The Bill defined in a positive manner what the examiners were to do, without having regard to the natural progress of science and learning, for an expansive and improvable system was not provided for by the Bill. Many medical men said that there was no confidence in existing examinations; and, indeed, there had been a competition downwards, so as to secure as large a number of persons as possible for examination. In some instances, also, the examiners had a pecuniary interest in the number of candidates passing the examination. Both these things were undoubtedly evils, and were only to be guarded against by making the examinations sufficiently stringent and by preventing the examiners from having a pecuniary interest in the result of the examinations. No doubt the examinations had in modern times been much improved; but what was wanted was a security for progressive improvement in examinations. The moment that you got only one examining body you would lose the probability of obtaining such improvement. He thought that the examiners should not be appointed by the body which would have the control over the examinations of the other medical corporations. If such were the case students would say that these other examinations were controlled by a body
  36
  which had an interest in preventing persons from entering the medical profession except by passing their own examination. The cardinal point was to secure a thorough examination, and one that would be fair to all; and, above all, the examining Board and the controlling Board should not be composed of the same persons. He thought, too, that no course of study should be compulsory, but that the examination should be so managed as to test the qualification to practise, and that if this were done, it would become immaterial whether the candidate had, or had not, attended certain classes or institutions. Such a system would lead to perfect freedom of teaching, and he believed that great improvement would follow.
  DR. BREWERsaid, that he must confess to a feeling of astonishment at the strange misconceptions which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) appeared to entertain on the objects contemplated by the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush). The hon. and learned Member for Dover charged the promoters of the Bill with the design of perpetuating the abuse whereby the 19 Universities or corporate bodies, who had the legal power of granting degrees and licences to practice in medicine or surgery, were all found competing with each other for candidates; and he rightly attributed to the pecuniary interest involved in securing the largest share of students, a direct inducement to lower the standard of efficiency demanded for obtaining a degree, and thereby lessening the security of the public and depreciating the test which an examination ought to supply. He (Dr. Brewer) could hardly account for the wondrous misapprehension of the object and scope of the Bill which this representation exhibited. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to road the Bill, and had so fallen into the error of attributing to it the very blots of the Act of 1858, at which the Bill before the House aimed, and which it was the special object of its promoters to remove. It had become patent that the actual constitution of the Medical Council was too restricted, and that the unrestricted competition between licensing bodies for the fees and the patronage of students was dangerous to the future success and advancement of me-

  37
  dical science, no less than unsatisfactory to the great body of practitioners throughout the country. It was patent that the Council had failed to regulate and control this state of things, and whether the defects were wholly attributed to the constitution of the Council or not, the medical practitioners of the country generally believed that a re-modelling of that body would be required in order to make it harmonize with the other provisions which must form the subject - matter of any good Medical Amendment Act. The Bill provided that the Council should be diminished in number, and that whilst the Government should be empowered to nominate one-third, the old corporations should be represented more as a body of mixed constituencies than by individual representation. But the chief modification in the constitution of the Council would be found in the provision for the direct representation of the medical practitioners throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for Dover rightly apprehended that his suggestion to trust simply to any examination as the test of knowledge, without taking cognizance of the educational training of students, whether that training were picked up in by-lanes and in a helter-skelter manner, or in obedience to a prepared and well-considered system, would not meet with the concurrence of the profession generally, and he (Dr. Brewer) would take leave to point out to the hon. and learned Member one of the most obvious reasons for this dissent. The science of medicine was not a certain science. It was unlike chemistry, astronomy, and mathematics, and it formed one of a group of uncertain sciences, requiring more of the invidual and affording less assistance from positive knowledge than any of the certain sciences supplied. Consequently the instrumentation of the mind—so to say—the excellence of the result of training on the individual was of greater consequence than any mere technical knowledge or special train of facts. The reliability to be placed in the medical practitioner arose far more from the flexibility of his mental operations, the use he had of the processes of thought, the exercises of his mental faculties, than on any mere glibness in answering medical queries, or even in knowing the physical framework, or symptoms of morbid
  38
  structures of the body. It was, in fine, the instrumentation of the mind rather than the mere knowledge of facts which made a great physician. Therefore, it was of no slight and secondary consequence that a good course of study and a competent body of professors and teachers should form a prominent part in any scheme which aimed at elevating the standard of medical education. He was not sanguine enough to believe that the Bill before the House would or could pass as it stood. He was not prepared to say that there were not some serious defects, and more serious omissions in its provisions; but the object the promoters of the Bill had in view, was to pass the second reading with the express understanding that it should subsequently be referred to a Select Committee upstairs, where evidence might be invited into the undoubted defects of the law as it existed—into the proposed constitution of the new Council—into the best method of forming an examining board—into the nature of inspection required to secure a due care in conducting the examination, and, in fine, to show by what modification of its provisions, or by what additional precautions or suggestions, material might be collected for the preparation of a Bill for medical reform, which should secure what the hon. and learned Member desiderated—that which the Government Bill of last year failed to assure—aud that which must be the common aim of the promoters of this Bill and of all earnest medical reformers, a better supply of competent practitioners, through the means of a higher standard of excellence in medical study and medical examinations. If the hon. and learned Member were sincere in his deprecation of the abuses to which he pointed, and desired the reforms which he had suggested, he would undoubtedly succeed in both these objects far better by sending this Bill to a Select Committee upstairs, than by the course, which through misconception of the aims of the Bill, he had foreshadowed.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The cognate Bills of the hon. Members for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) and Salisbury (Dr. Lush) have a double purpose—they aim at reforming the constitution of the Medical Council, and they desire to give a national security for the theoretical and practical knowledge of licentiates in

  39
  medicine. Their purposes are not new to this House, for it is now a period of 40 years since our attention was first directed, to the subject-matter of these Bills. After numerous and vain attempts at legislation, the Act of 1838, founded on compromises, was passed. By that Act the Medical Council was instituted, its object being to enable "persons requiring medical aid to distinguish qualified from unqualified practitioners." Its primary object, as thus defined, was for the protection of the public, and yet, by an anomaly, the public were not called upon to pay for their own protection, but the expense of working the Act was thrown upon the very qualified practitioners, against whom the public required no protection. Such an Act could not work without friction. The general practitioners of the country, on receiving the licence to practice, were taxed for the support of the Medical Council, on which, in defiance to all principles of taxation, they were not directly represented. The Council was composed of representatives of medical corporations and Universities. The representatives are selected by their executive Governing Bodies, and not by the licentiates or graduates, as they might even now be without new legislation. In the fact that the only entrances into the medical profession are through 19 portals leading out of the medical corporations, there is a slight, though not a popular, representation of the licentiates of medicine. But if, as these Bills propose, all these corporation portals are to be closed and entrance to the profession is only to be attained by a single portal, guarded by a national board, or by three portals of a like kind, every kind of representation, close or open, is cut off between the future licentiates and the Medical Council. My hon. Friends have seen this, and have been forced by this circumstance to include in their Bills two objects of a different character. The constitution of the Medical Council is one thing; the mode by which the qualifications of medical practitioners is to be ascertained is another. Both subjects were important; but each is so large and affects so many existing interests, that it would less encumber the path of medical reform if they were dealt with in separate Bills. At all events, past reformers have been unable to secure such support, for both, subjects as to en-
  40
  able them to carry their measures. Even Government last year found the necessity of asking our attention to one part of the question—the admission of licentiates—leaving the constitution of the Medical Council for future consideration. I feel the difficulty even in addressing the House. I cannot resist, and have no desire to resist, the claims of the medical practitioners to a direct representation on the Medical Council, and I even grant that they should have a preponderating representation upon it, so long as they are taxed for its support; but it is a question of public policy whether they should be so taxed. The Medical Council is primarily established—not to protect members of a profession in their class interests, but to protect the public from unskilled medical practitioners. If the protection of the public be the real raison d'étre for this Council, its expenses should be borne by the public and not by the profession. But if this be done, then the constitution of the Council should have more of a public and less of a professional character. In such a case there ought to be a lay element in the Council, because the representation of public interests becomes a more important question than the representation of professional interests. The latter should, no doubt, be represented also, but in a subordinate degree to that which they have a right to ask as long as the cost of the Council is met by the taxation of new entrants into the profession. There are other important questions involved in this part of the subject, to which I can only allude. One is, how much or how little representation should be allotted to the medical corporations and the Universities. The two Bills before us treat this part of the subject in a very different fashion; the Bill of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) leaving the representation of corporations in its present position, while that of the hon. Member for Salisbury reduces it to very diminutive proportions. My own feelings are in favour of an efficient representation of the corporations. I think they have acted beneficially on the recognition of medical men as a distinct and independent profession. Without them there would be as little coherence and as little esprit de corps as there is among officers of the mercantile navy, who, though all certificated men, want

  41
  centres of junction to make them a recognized profession, and to give them the strength of combined unities. Any scheme of medical reform which weakens these bonds of union, I feel satisfied will weaken the influence of the profession as a whole. I have said enough to show that there are large and leading principles connected with the constitution of the Council that require careful consideration, apart from the other subject embraced in the Bills before us—the securities for the proper qualifications of medical practitioners. There is no doubt that there is a need of reform here also; less need, indeed, than when the agitation for it first began, because the effect of that agitation has been to force upon some of the examining bodies the necessity of ascertaining the practical and clinical knowledge of the candidates, both in the arts of medicine and of surgery. Still the main fact remain that there are 19 licensing bodies in the kingdom, with from 12 to 20 examiners to each, and it is impossible with such a number to prevent a certain amount of competition for candidates, or to obtain sureties that the standard of qualification will never be below a certain minimum. The two Bills before us treat this evil in two different ways. The Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) proposes that there shall be a single national examining board, peripatetic in the three divisions of the kingdom; whereas the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) intends that there shall be three national boards—one for England, a second for Scotland, and a third for Ireland. It does not follow that because 19 licensing bodies are too numerous, that therefore they should be reduced to one. I prefer the scheme of three national portals to one portal, for reasons which seem to me to be weighty. At present the examining bodies in the three capitals enjoy the services of the most distinguished members of the profession. As long as you have an examing board, with its work circumscribed to one part of the kingdom, you may continue to enjoy the services of the chief members of the medical profession in testing the qualifications of the licentiates; but if you have a moveable board, oscillating between distant points, you cannot secure the services of men whose great experience in a practical
  42
  profession best fits them for performing the duties of examiners. I do not say that you could not secure the services of competent examiners, but they would necessarily be men of less position and experience than are now on the examining boards, and would be less calculated to inspire public confidence in their judgments. Besides, an absolute uniformity in examination is not desirable. Differentiation is as important in science as it is in the structure of organized beings. England, Scotland, and Ireland have always been characterized by the differences of their medical systems of education, and by differences in the practice of the arts of medicine and surgery. These differences, though sometimes loading to fierce professional contentions for a time, have redounded to the advancement of medicine. I should lament to see the characteristics of these schools merge into the sameness which must necessarily be produced by a single examining body; for just as ships must adapt themselves to the character of the harbour into which they are to sail, so must schools suit their students—to the knowledge and peculiarities of their examiners. The very differentiation of the three national boards is a great recommendation of them to my mind, and securities could readily be taken that a certain standard of knowledge should prevail in all, without a definite sameness of knowledge that would merely indicate success in the art of cramming. But whether you have three portals or one portal for licence to practice, such limited entrances must always aim at excluding the inefficient and yet admitting the moderately competent. You may by them exclude the incompetent and assure a respectable mediocrity in the profession, but you cannot by such means give an active stimulus to excellence. There are, therefore, behind this scheme many important questions which we cannot treat lightly. Do we by it injure or strengthen the Universities and medical corporations in inducing members of the profession to seek higher titles than licentiates, and thus always secure among medical men a class distinguished for literary and scientific attainments, and for high skill and prolonged experience of their profession? If your scheme fail to do this you bring down the profession of medicine to a dead level of respectable mediocrity. Take the division

  43
  of the kingdom with which I am best acquainted. In Scotland, the three Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen educate about one-third of the whole medical men of the kingdom. Drawn within the walls of a University the medical students become imbued with the spirit of its teaching, and enlarge their studios in science beyond the mere prescribed curriculum of a medical education. Will these Bills encourage or destroy these University teaching's for medical students? Will they weaken or strengthen the Universities as sources of notional education for the people, by crippling or augmenting their resources? These are grave questions as affecting the public interest, and especially grave to me, who represent the largest medical school and medical constituency in the kingdom. I do not intend to discuss them now, for I cannot think that my hon. Friends propose to push these Bills through their various stages at this late period of the Session. My own constituents certainly do not believe that the time for actual medical reform has been reached in these efforts of two private Members. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. Gordon), and myself certainly possess the largest medical constituencies in this House; but with the exception of a single letter, which was in answer to one from myself, I have not received any communication in regard to either of these Bills. Is this because medical men are indifferent to medical reform? Certainty not that. There is very nearly unanimous feeling that changes are required in the mode of licensing' medical men, and in the constitution of the Medical Council. Nor is it because the Bills before us are unworthy of attention. Both of them are well-considered Bills, and present their own views with care and elaboration. But the indifference to their fate depends on the fact that they aim at reforms beyond the power of private Members to effect. If the medical graduates of my Universities, amounting to several thousands, believed that medical reform depends on the fate of these Bills, my life would be a burden to me in the amount of correspondence which it would entail. My complete immunity in this respect is owing to the belief that Parliament, while it treats these Bills with the respect due to well-considered mea-
  44
  sures, will not pass them into law. I trust that my hon. Friends will be content to consider their Bills as indications to the Government of the paths which they may pursue in medical reform. The Government alone can deal with a subject so important to public interests. They are perfectly aware from the 40 years' war on this subject, that much reform is needed, but that in making it great evil as well as great good may ensue. The interests of the public and the interests of the medical profession can be best brought into co-relation by the aid of a Government having no prejudices or passions created by professional contentions, and whose only object can be to give the public security for its health and life, and to the licentiates and graduates in medicine that status which will be assured by the possession of high scientific and skilled practical knowledge of their profession.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there were two points for discussion—one, as to the mode of examining and certifying medical practitioners, and the other as to the constitution of the Medical Council. With regard to the first point the Government entirely appreciated its great importance. They were aware of the very great practical evils that resulted from there being 19 accredited bodies for certifying medical practitioners, but they had been unable to deal with the question this year. That had led two private Members to bring in Bills on the subject, but neither could hope to pass his Bill during the present Session. From the number of questions pressing on the Government for legislation, he could not pledge them to bring in a Bill next year; but he could assure hon. Members that it was their wish and anxiety to do so. If they were unable to deal with the subject next year, and if any private Member, such as his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Dr. Lush) or any other, took up the subject, no obstacle would be thrown in the way of the fullest consideration of it by the House; and if it was desirable the Bill might be referred to a Committee upstairs. Legislation had failed last year because, although the Bill which had been, introduced into the House of Lords had been most carefully considered, it had been thought desirable, when the Bill came down to that House, to add to the questions they were then attempting

  45
  to settle the other question of the constitution of the Medical Council, and it was then too late in the Session to deal with that subject.
  MR. BRADYsaid, there were at present 19 different medical examining bodies, 19 modes of medical licensing, and 19 different systems of medical education. The Bill proposed to reduce these to one for Ireland, one for Scotland, and one for England. It would not be easy to decide the question in the present Session; but he trusted that the Government would early next year introduce a satisfactory measure on the subject.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he must express his gratification at the announcement that the Government would consider the subject during the Recess, with a view to grappling with it in the next Session.
  DR. LUSHsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  METROPOLIS WATER (NO. 2) BILL.
  Select Committee on the Metropolis Water (No. 2) Bill nominated:—Mr. BRAND, Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Sir JAMES LAWRENCE, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. CAMPBRLL, and Five Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.
  GLASGOW BOUNDARY BILL.
  On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to determine the Boundaries of the barony and regality of Glasgow for the purposes of Registration, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.

  SASINES REGISTER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to facilitate the keeping the General Register of Sasines for Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.