COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 24 July 1873 vol 217 cc921-55

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I need not remind you that the House only came to a division on the second reading of this Bill at two in the morning on Tuesday last, and I rejoice that that stage of the Bill was only carried by a majority of 14 votes. On the present occasion I wish to observe, if I am not out of Order, upon the course which was then pursued by the opponents of the measure. They are said to be of opposite opinions with regard to the subject-matter of it; but my belief is, that we have one common ground of objection to the Bill, and although the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) and other hon. Members rested their objections upon what I may call the sectarian ground, still believe that they all feel with those who, like myself, do not attach to that ground the importance which they do themselves, an objection to the interference of Parliament with property, which this Bill like the original Act of 1869, entails. It appears to me, Sir, with regard to endowed schools, that this House is proceeding on the principle that where property belongs to a considerable number of people for a specific object, possession is entitled to less respect than in cases where property belongs to individuals. Now, Sir, I must say that I consider that a very dangerous principle. I know that in the county which I have the honour to represent, there are large properties in some cases, small properties in other cases, applied to the purpose of maintaining elementary education which strictly belong to the poor and the labouring classes of particular parishes. Well, Sir, what is the principle which this House has adopted? Literally, that whatever portion of such property in those several parishes is applied to the maintenance of the elementary education of the children of those parishes shall, because it is so devised, be confiscated. Well, I know that this House is too much accustomed to hear that word "confiscation," and that it has sometimes been applied in cases, where, perhaps, it was not so applicable as it is in this case. I will take an illustration. There are three parishes adjoining one another. In two of them I have property, and am a trustee for the property of the labouring classes and of the poor; I have also been asked to act as trustee in the third. Now, what has the legislation of this House done? The proposal is to extend that legislation and perpetuate the powers of the Commissioners, into whose hands this property so devoted to elementary education is transferred by this Bill and its predecessor. Well, Sir, I can assure the House that my neighbours of the labouring class are quite as well disposed as the average of their fellow-countrymen; nevertheless, they do feel very bitterly the sanction, which this House has given to the confiscation of property which belonged to them and to their fathers; property which had given them the means of education; and not only that Parliament has sanctioned the confiscation of that property, except some portion of it to be reserved as prizes, but is proposing that those same persons, who have been educated, father and son, out of this property, should, in addition to being deprived of that property, be taxed by the foundation of school boards for the very purpose from which that property, being their own, has been alienated by Parliament. I hope I have put the case fairly and plainly; and I do assure the House that this process is producing a bitterness of feeling of which we may hereafter have disagreeable evidence. Take the case of the parish of Bedworth and the schools there, of which I have been for many years a Governor. This is a charity at Bed worth, near Nuneaton, and was founded by a former clergyman of the parish for the benefit of the labouring classes. I, and my former Colleague, Mr. Dugdale, were two of the Commissioners. Minerals were discovered under that property, and we obtained the leave of the Charity Commissioners to provide for the further development of that property. It was let upon lease; the lessee failed, and for a certain period the Charity Commissioners allowed us to work those minerals until we could let them. That was a mark of confidence on the part of the Charity Commissioners which I hope has been repaid. So, literally, the Governors have created the increase of that property from a source which has given employment to these people upon their own property, and now, when 800 of their children are receiving education in schools which are admitted to be the best in the district, I am likely to have to tell these people that "Parliament has decided that the £800 a-year of your property, property which has been devoted to the education of your fathers, yourselves, and your children, shall be taken away—and why? Because you have been so educated out of your own property!" Well, they will look across the canal which separates this property from mine, and in their homely phrase will say— "They are going to take away our pits; why don't they take Newdegate's?" What answer am I to give? Who would expect me as an honest man in this House not to oppose what I consider a downright robbery? Because, if you object to the form of education, Parliament, in its discretion, might alter that education. I might lament the change, for it is the best education that the Governors can devise and provide; but I should not feel, as I do now, that Parliament was about to take away from this people the property which had been applied beneficially to them and their fathers for generations. Sir, I am directly and distinctly opposed to this principle of confiscation; and we feel it none the less acutely, because this principle is specially applied to property which is devoted to education in the tenets of the Church, of which I and the great majority of these people are members. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their sectarian heat, can scarcely have considered the feeling that they must be arousing in the hearts of those possessors of property, who are as sincerely attached to the religion they profess as hon. Members may be to the religious views they entertain. Look at the matter from another point. If there is one denomination of religion in this country more defiant than others in raising their institutions, it is the Roman Catholic denomination. Not less than 300 of these monastic and conventual institutions have of late years been erected in England and Wales, the most of them being for educational purposes; but Parliament which has dealt thus with the property of the educational establishments belonging to the Established Church, has never yet completed even an inquiry into the existence of this other property which is held against the law, is administered in defiance of the law, and yet remains secured from the rough process which is applied to the educational property of the Church of England. I ask hon. Members, then, who are in the habit of talking so much about equality, where is the equality between the treatment that you have extended to the Church of England educational charities, and your abstinence even from inquiry into those increasing establishments of the Church of Rome? I cannot think that hon. Members who represent various Protestant sects can have looked at the subject as it stands; but I feel it to be my duty to bring it distinctly before the House, because I am convinced that Parliament is dealing with this matter in a sense which the people feel to be directly undermining their independence; for, disguise it as you may, this determination that there shall be no educational property, except that administered to the operative classes either out of the poor rate, or an education rate, which is equivalent to a poor rate, levied under an administration similar to that which levies the poor rate, is inflicting upon them a sense of deep degradation, a feeling that when you take away the property which is their own for the same purpose, and saddle them with this great sustained system of rating, you are treating them as if they were indeed a class apart, unfit to possess or to enjoy property, unfit to have it administered to their immediate wants, especially their educational wants, the urgency of which you are perpetually pressing upon the attention of Parliament. Let not hon. Members mistake the feeling which is thus engendered. It is very well for you to tell us that because the rate is to be administered by elective boards, therefore it is more these people's own than the property which they now enjoy. The people feel nothing of the kind. You may suppose that country gentlemen like myself have no sense of responsibility. You may suppose that I could have used this trust property as I liked, and yet go scatheless among my neighbours. You know little of the English people if you believe anything of the kind. I thank God that the people of my district have always been of a very independent mind, and if they suspected me of anything like abuse or foul play, they would let me know it before a week was over, and that in no very doubtful terms. I know that well. With people of that temper, if you think that your present process is pleasing, you are very greatly mistaken; and tell you that when it is understood it is most distasteful to them. Hon. Members may be pleased to treat this as a question that is closed, whereas it is a question that has only lately opened itself to the understanding of the people, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Education Department of the Privy Council admitted the other night whilst apologizing to some of his Friends, that the puny concessions which this Bill contains had been wrung from him by the pressure from without, and by the apprehension that the House of Lords might respect those feelings of opposition. Well, Sir, I believe that whatever the hidden jealousy or sectarian feeling hon. Members may represent, as opposed to those charities because they are connected with the Church of England, still there lies at the bottom of their opposition a recognition of the fact that the process which you are applying is calculated to undermine the independence of the labouring classes; an independence which I have always respected; an independence which I believe to be at the foundation of our national greatness; an independence which I have never done anything to violate; an independence which I hope that the House will ever respect. I have given Notice of my intention to move that this Bill be committed on this day three months, because I believe that this Commission ought to be brought to a close. Had it been a Commission of Inquiry, had it been a Commission for the correction of abuses, had it been a Commission for obtaining the restoration of property that had been misapplied, I should have hailed it; but I have it stated in the correspondence of these Commissioners that no matter what may be the merits of a school, or however thoroughly good may be its administration, the one fact that any such school is sustained out of property which belongs to the inhabitants of a parish, at once condemns the property so applied to confiscation, vpso facto, from no imputation upon its management; but simply because this House will not permit property for elementary education to be held for the people of this country in the form of a trust, the trustees being bound to give effect to the intentions of the founder. Now, Sir, that decision applies not only to the Church of England, but to every denomination that may hold property of the kind; and I say this—I myself may have thought of devoting property for the purpose of continuing elementary education to au increased and increasing population already in the enjoyment of some of this trust property. But I will do nothing of the sort, if Parliament is to pass an Act, that, first confiscates the larger charities applied to those purposes, and vests them in these Endowed Schools Commissioners to be alienated from their original objects, and then, as a concession in this Bill, merely changes the appropriation of the smaller charities, confiscating them from the possession of the locality and investing them in the Committee of Privy Council. Sir, such petty concessions as this are no concessions of principle, as the right hon. Gentleman informed the House the other night, but constitute a perpetuation of the same principle to which I am diametrically opposed. I wish the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had reached the public. I am sorry to say, that, perhaps owing to the lateness of the hour at which it was delivered, the reports of it were very much curtailed; but such was the zeal displayed by the right hon. Gentleman that I made a note of one passage. He said— My hon. Friends must be aware that in several instances the House of Lords has rejected schemes which have been proposed by the Commissioners. I very much regret that the House of Lords has possessed that power. It seems, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is so ardent in the cause, that he would even disfranchise the other branch of the Legislature in order to further his object. That is Sir, an excess of zeal which must be dangerous in its consequences. I object, then, to the continuance of this machinery for the carrying out of that which in my neighbourhood will be a process of confiscation. I object to it the more, because it is a confiscation of the property of the labouring and the poor classes; and it is for these reasons that I have given the Notice which I now beg to place in your hands, that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill on this day three months.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

seconded the views of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and he did so all the more readily because he was very anxious to leave on record the grounds of his support. He did not think it was just that Parliament should, under any circumstances, ignore the right of inheritance which existed in the children of the poor, especially as every proposal of the Commissioners seemed to be—indeed, was almost openly avowed to be —to take from that class, and to provide for the children of another, which ought to be able to provide for the education of its own children. As soon as that Commission came into operation, they had this state of things—that the Commissioners proceeded to deal with some of the charitable foundations of the country which ought not to have been touched at all, or, at least, not until after all the misused endowments had been thoroughly dealt with. He asked the House to consider whether it had not evidence before it, that the very first schools that were attacked were those which were well conducted and the least requiring alteration. He was one of those who did not believe in competitive examination to the extent to which it was at present carried, because he knew that practically it meant cramming; and he especially disliked competitive examination when it actually dealt with the children of the indigent poor whose early lives were commonly passed in great straits, and who, therefore, had not the pecuniary means to place their children on the same footing as those of comparatively richer people. Under such circumstances there could be no "fair start," inasmuch as the poor man's child must necessarily be over weighted in such competition. He, therefore, cordially seconded the proposition of his hon. Friend, because he wished it distinctly to go forth throughout the length and breadth of the country that, without using the word "confiscation," the alienation now going on was as near confiscation, so far as the heritage of the poor was concerned, as was possible. The time, however, was fast coming when that class of the people would thoroughly understand to whom they were indebted for that state of matters, and, no doubt, it would be precisely and correctly appreciated. For his own part he believed that no man, or no body of men, call them by what name so ever they pleased had the right, even under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, to alter the devolution prescribed by the will of a Founder, without the most urgent necessity.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," —(Mr. Newdegate,)—instead thereof.

MR. HINDE PALMER

thought it would be a very serious misfortune and great calamity to the public, if the Bill now before the House did not pass, and the Commission were consequently allowed to expire. In a great number of instances in which the Commissioners had dealt with these endowments, they had conferred a large benefit on the communities of different localities. One great advantage had been that the Commissioners had saved an enormous amount of litigation in the course of their proceedings, because they had settled schemes of endowments for a large number of charities which otherwise could not have been settled without the institution of separate Chancery suits for each individual charity. When the endowments were made there were comparatively very few elementary public schools; but now the national education establishment existed, or would exist everywhere. Why, then, should not some of these endowments be applied towards the provision of a higher grade of education than that given by the mere elementary schools? One of the great wants of the day was, that they should give a better sort of technical education to the children, and this was one of the points recommended in the Report of the Commissioners, which he hoped to see accomplished.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he was not without considerable sympathy with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, in regard to several points in his speech; but as the House bad arrived at the point of going into Committee on the Bill, he confessed that he would rather prefer seeing what could be done with it in Committee than give any opinion of the measure in its present shape. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the undesirability of a discussion at this stage. He strenuously denied that confiscation was contemplated, or had been committed, under the original Act, and with regard to the case referred to by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, it had not yet come before the Commissioners. The duty of the Commissioners—which he believed they had tried to fulfil, and which the Government took care that they did fulfil—was not to confiscate the property of the poor, but to see that the property was applied in a manner that would best help the poor. Considering the provision which was made by law for elementary education, it was desirable, in dealing with great endowments, to see whether we could not do something more with them than teach merely reading, writing, and arithmetic. What he said the other night was, that this House was bound to consider facts as they were, and that it was in the power of either House to carry out its own peculiar views in any particular matter on the consideration of a scheme. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire might take some comfort from that fact, seeing that he had so much confidence in the other House. This "confiscating" Commission had been at work for some years, all its schemes, with the exception of some half-dozen, had become law, notwithstanding the check upon them possessed by both Houses; and the unsuccessful schemes had not been rejected on the grounds taken by the hon. Member.

MR. DILLWYN

admitted that he had been fairly beaten the other evening, and, accepting the decision of the House, wished to get into Committee, where he would again endeavour to give effect to his views. His objections were exactly the reverse of those of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; he complained of the Bill clipping the wings of the Commissioners and curtailing their power.

MR. HEYGATE

could not admit that schemes met with approval in the country, because the rejection of them was not moved in either House. He knew of several instances in which great discontent had been evinced at the schemes of the Commissioners.

MR. NEWDEGATE

explained that he had mentioned the case he had adduced as an illustration and type of those dealt with in schemes, and that the principle to which he had objected, the alienation of endowments from the labouring classes, was embodied in letters he had received from the Commission as Chairman of two Trusts. He wished to take the sense of the House on that principle.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Exception of elementary schools from 32 & 33 Viet. c. 56. and application thereto of 33 & 34 Viet. c. 75, s. 75).

MR. HEYGATE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "not being,' to "is" in line 16, on the ground that the clause was drawn with certain limitations as to grammar schools and the amount of endowments. Under the limitation in the clause all grammar schools having endowments of less than £100 a-year would be liable to be deprived of such endowments. The object of his Amendment was to fulfil the promise which his right hon. Friend had made over and over again—that the voluntary schools should not be injured by the Bill of 1870.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it was impossible for him to give his hon. Friend an assurance in the matter. His hon. Friend proposed to withdraw all grammar schools under £100 a-year from the purview of the Bill; but he trusted the Committee would not accede to such a proposal, on the ground that there were a large number of small grammar schools which had degenerated into miserable elementary schools, not only not doing good, but harm, by preventing other and better schools being established, and leading the people in the district to believe that no other school was required. He had little doubt that the Commissioners would find a great deal to do with respect to the more important schools first; but he could not consent to omit 416 grammar schools, or nearly one-half from the Bill. For himself, he should have liked to see the clause not go beyond £50; but, nevertheless, there was an advantage in framing the Bill on the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commissioners.

MR. COLLINS

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he wished to propose an Amendment in another direction. There were a great many elementary schools throughout the country, and he could not see why the amount should be limited to £100. The right plan would be to remove all these elementary schools from the operation of the Commissioners till they had concluded their work in regard to grammar schools. It did not at all follow, that because these schools were removed from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, therefore they would be removed from all improvement. For example, they might be subjected to regular Government inspection, and have the power of charging fees. The Commissioners had stated that the reason why they might fairly divert funds given for elementary education to the purposes of higher education was, that the country had now made provision for elementary education. He maintained, however, that the country had not done so; because where voluntary schools existed it was not necessary to raise rates. He could not see why, when they had to deal with elementary schools provided for out of endowments, they should not be put upon as good a footing as others, nor why they should insist on putting them in the hands of a Commission that did not want them. He would move as an Amendment in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "1870," to "in," in line 21.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from the words "one thousand eight hundred and seventy," to the word "in," in line 21.—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

DR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, the Amendment would produce large results certainly not contemplated by the Select Committee. The clause, as it stood, would affect about 1,200 schools under £100 per annum. Certainly a larger endowment than that could scarcely be applied with advantage to this elementary education in a national school. [Mr. GATILORNE HARDY pointed out that under the 3rd section all elementary schools would be liable to inspection.] But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would include 400 or 500 additional schools, some with incomes varying from £4,000 to £8,000. In Bristol alone there were three of these large foundations now devoted to mere elementary education. There were two leading objections to the proposal. Firstly, the Education Department had not a staff for investigating the working of such schools, and for making new schemes for them, while the Endowed Schools Commission had been organized for the very purpose. Secondly, it would be unfair to the schools themselves; for if they were handed over to the Education Department they came under the Act of 1870, which gave powers to that Department to ratify new schemes under its own authority, and to amend them at its own discretion. So that the schools would lose all those safeguards which were provided by the Endowed Schools Act. They would thus lose their power of three appeals—from the Commission to the Education Department, from that to the Privy Council, and from that to the supreme authority of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman could scarcely have contemplated that that would be the result of his Amendment. It was true that, under the Act of 1870, the initiative for reform must come from the schools; but to preserve that motive for sluggishness could not be the object of the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the exemption applied to endowed schools that were really elementary schools, and when they were put up to £100 a-year they had to deal with a very different range of schools, some of them with endowments of many thousands a-year. That was the very class of schools that required reform, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. The Commissioners were bound to take care of the interests of the poor, and they would do so. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do by his Amendment was to leave the trustees of these large endowments unreformed, and the effect would be to strike out many schools that really required reform. The Education Department were not provided with the organization and the Staff necessary to send down Inspectors and arrange schemes for these large schools. If such schools as the Colston Schools at Bristol, which ought to be under the supervision of the Commissioners, were to be inspected in the higher branches, they would require a large increase of Inspectors. The duty of the Education Department was to look after elementary education, for the promotion of which large sums were voted to Parliament. Under the operation of that Amendment Emanuel Hospital would have been exempt, and it would exclude from the possibility of reform large institutions which required improvement as much as any endowments that came under the purview of the Commissioners.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY,

in reply, said, that his remarks would not appl3 to the Colston Schools, nor to the Emanuel Hospital, which were really charity schools, and did not come under the description of elementary schools.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 88: Majority 41.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Amendment of 32 & 33 Viet. c. 56, s. 11).,

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, this was the opportunity for providing against the assumption on the part of the Commissioners of powers which lie felt certain the House never intended them to exercise, and which, if employed, would be attended by very mischievous results. He would therefore move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "scheme" and insert— To make provision, as near as may be, for the educational interests of the class denoted in the gift or bequest of the donor as that for which his endowment was intended, and no proposal shall be inserted in any scheme alienating any portion of such bequest or gift for the benefit of persons in any other class in life or of persons in the same class resident in any other county or town than that named or otherwise indicated by the donor. No one could doubt, looking at the evidence taken before the Select Committee, that the Commissioners had assumed to themselves a discretion with regard to the transfer of endowments from place to place and from class to class, which Parliament never intended to confer upon them. When introducing the Act of 1869, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council expressed his hope that no attempt would ever be made to apply the school endowments of the country to the purposes of elementary education. He could state from his own knowledge, cases in which, in the opinion of the communities concerned, the most grievous injustice was impending by the exercise of this assumed power on the part of the Commissioners. He had that morning received an answer to a letter lie had addressed to a friend, requesting information as to the feeling in South Devon with respect to the manner in which this power had been exercised. In reply his informant stated that with regard to the correction of abuses, he and his friends I were perfectly satisfied; but that the Commissioners had exercised an arbitrary discretion concerning many endowments which were regarded with much discontent—that they had taken away the means of education from the humbler and poorer middle class in order to create elementary schools which might be otherwise provided, and had thereby done a greater wrong to the real poor than if they had left the endowments as they were. Now, the real poor were not the members of trades unions, earning 40s. and 50s. a-week, and who could raise for them the price of fuel at their will and pleasure. The real poor were the half-pay officer, the curate, the clerk, the surgeon, and the man of small means of various degrees, whose children it was of the utmost importance to have properly educated, and for whose benefit these endowments were originally given. It was now for the Committee to decide whether, in passing the Endowed Schools Act, Parliament meant to constitute a triumvirate over the endowed property of this country, to do with it what no Department of the State would venture to do—namely, to change altogether the purposes for which it was bequeathed. As a member of the legal profession, he ventured to say that the assumption by the Commissioners of the right to overturn the old doctrine of cy pres, was never intended by Parliament. The doctrine of cy pres rendered into vulgar English was this—when a donor had given of his wealth for purposes of education or charity, and it became difficult in after times to find exactly the object designed by the deed of gift, you were to go as near to it as might be. That was common sense and common honesty, and the Courts of Equity had always upheld it. And was Parliament now, with Communism looking in at the door, to overrule that principle? And, besides, the purpose of the gift, he maintained that place was one of the elements to be considered. The Commissioners had usurped functions which Parliament had never given them. When examined as a witness recently before the Select Committee, Lord Lyttelton had avowed the doctrine that after 50 years property belonged to the State. He asked where were they to stop? Would any gentleman feel his property as secure as before if Parliament gave its sanction to such a doctrine? The right hon. Gentleman had laid on the Table a coil of schemes which he had approved, but which, from pressure of business, the House had not had time to examine. The day was, perhaps, not far distant when Members would bitterly regret that the Anaconda folds of that serpent had not been cut. He submitted that the whole course of their legislation and law was opposed to the discretion vested in the Commissioners, and on which this clause placed no efficient check, and for the purpose of enabling the House to decide whether this check was required or not, he now moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 20, to leave out from the word "scheme," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "to make provision, as near as may be, for the educational interests of the class denoted in the gift or bequest of the donor as that for which his endowment was intended, and no proposal shall be inserted in any scheme alienating any portion of such bequest or gift for the benefit of persons in any other class in life or of persons in the same class resident in any other county or town than that named or otherwise indicated by the donor."—(Mr. Torrens.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

trusted the Committee would abide by the words of the clause which were those agreed upon by the Committee upstairs. The alteration had been determined upon after much consideration, and for the purpose of giving effect to the view arrived at by the Committee after taking a great deal of evidence. His hon. Friend had said that this clause would give to that "Triumvirate" powers which had been given to no Department of the State. It did no such thing. The power given by the original Act was vested in the Government, and the Commissioners were only the machinery made use of in framing the schemes. But the Government had found that there was a disadvantage in their not having the power to amend a scheme, being limited to approval or disapproval, and that power was taken in this Bill. But, undoubtedly, the Bill left the Government absolutely responsible for these schemes, and it was an entire delusion to say that the matter was left to an irresponsible-triumvirate. The illustrations given by his hon. Friend referred to schemes not yet agreed upon or approved by the Education Department. He affected to be horrified at the Anaconda coil of schemes that had been laid upon the Table. But, if his hon. Friend was so horrified at that dreadful serpent, which was coiling itself around .hon. Members of this House, why did he not himself come to the rescue and cut the coils? He doubted whether the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would carry out his own object. He had alluded to one scheme—that, he supposed, of Dulwich College; but no county was named by the original Founder, and the different parishes interested in Dulwich School had different opinions on the subject; a scheme was settled not long ago which did not give full satisfaction to one or other of them. It was the duty of the Commission to examine into the matter and propose a scheme which would be just to all sides. By the clause as it now stood the Government took care that due regard should be paid to the interests of the particular class originally intended to be benefited, and the Amendment of his hon. Friend would only fence round and limit the action of the Commissioners much more than would be desirable.

MR. LOCKE

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend who had moved that Amendment, that no greater mistake could be made than the adoption of a policy which took property from some people simply for the purpose of giving it to others. The Commissioners had made many mistakes in the exercise of their functions, and he had the greatest objection to the tyrannical powers with which they were armed. Representing as he did one of the parishes interested in the Dulwich School, he must say great complaints were made of the course they had taken in regard to that school. A scheme had been prepared, but it was kept back from the public, in the hope that in the meantime the powers of the Commissioners would be renewed. The Commissioners were three tyrants in the country, and they seemed to think that they could do anything they liked.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 68: Majority 32.

AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Brewer, Dr.
Anderson, G.	Brocklehurst, W. C.
Ayrton, rt. hon. A. S.	Brown, A. H.
Aytoun, R. S.	Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.
Baines, E.	Cadogan, hon. F. W.
Balfour, Sir G.	Campbell-Bannerman, H.
Barclay, J. W.
Bass, A.	Candlish, J.
Bassett, F.	Cardwell, rt. hon. E.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.	Carter, R. M.
Beaumont, Major F.	Cave, T.
Beaumont, W. B.	Cavendish, Lord F. C.
Bentall, E. H.	Childers, rt. hon. H.
Biddulph, M.	Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bolckow, H. W. F.	Corrigan, Sir D.
Bowling, E. A.	Davies, H.
Brady, J.	Delahunty, J.
Brasses, T.	Dent, J. D.

Dickinson, S. S.	Lubbock, Sir J.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Lush, Dr.
Dixon, G.	Lusk, A.
Dodds, J.	Lyttelton, hon. C. G.
Duff, M. E. G.	Mackintosh, E. W.
Edwards, H.	M'Clure, T.
Egerton, Adml. hn. F.	M'Lagan, P.
Enfield, Viscount	Miall, E.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	Miller, W.
Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.	Mitchell, T. A.
Fletcher, I.	Monsell, rt. hon. W.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E.	Muntz, P. H.
Gilpin, C.	Peel, A. W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Pender, J.
Gladstone, W. H.	Playfair, L.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.	Price, W. E.
Gourley, E. T.	Rathbone, W.
Grieve, J. J.	Reed, C.
Hartington, Marq. of	Richard, H.
Henderson, J.	Shaw, R.
Henley, Lord	Sherlock, D.
Hibbert, J. T.	Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
Hoskyns, C. Wren	Storks, rt. hon. Sir H. K.
Illingworth, A.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Jardine, H.	Trevelyan, G. O.
Johnston, A.	Vivian, A. P.
Kensington, Lord	Wedderburn, Sir D.
Knatehbull-Hugessen,	Whitwell, J.
rt. hon. E. H.	Williams, W.
Lancaster, J.	Wingfield, Sir C.
Lawson, Sir W.	Young, rt. hon. G.
Leatham, E. A.
Lefevre, G. J. S.	TELLERS.
Leith, J. F.	Adam, W. P.
Lowe, rt. hon. R.	Greville, hon. Captain

NOES.
Amphlett, R. P.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Baggallay, Sir R.	Mellor, T. W.
Bagge, Sir W.	Miller, J.
Barttelot, Colonel	Mitford, W. T.
Beach, Sir M. Hicks-	Monckton, hon. G.
Cawley, C. E.	Morley, S.
Charley, W. T.	Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Collins, T.	Nicholson, W.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	O'Conor, D. M.
Cubitt, G.	Parker, Lieut.-Col. W.
Denison, C. B.	Patten, rt. hon. Col. W.
Dimsdale, R.	Pell, A.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Phipps, C. P.
Dowdeswell, W. E.	Pim, J.
Dyke, W. H.	Plunket, hon. D. R.
Egerton, hon. W.	Powell, F. S.
Figgins, J.	Read, C. S.
Finch, G. H.	Salt, T.
Floyer,	Sandon, Viscount
Fowler, R. N.	Scourfield, J. H.
Gooch, Sir D.	Smith, S. G.
Gordon, E. S.	Stanhope, W. T. W. S.
Gore, J. R. O.	Steere, L.
Grant, Col. hon. J.	Talbot, J. G.
Hardy, rt. hon. G.	Taylor, rt. hon. Col.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Torr, J.
Hermon, E.	Turner, C.
Heygate, W. U.	Watney, J.
Hodgson, K. D.	Welby, W. E.
Holt, J. M.	Whalley, G. H.
Hope, A. J. B. B.	Wheelhouse, W. S. J.
Kavanagh, A. MacM.	Winn, R.
Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Lindsay, hon. Col. C.	TELLERS.
Lindsay, Col. R. L.	Locke, J.
Lowther, hon. W.	Torrens, W. T. M'C.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

In reply to Mr. F. S. POWELL,

MR. W. E. FORSTER

stated that the Bill would come into operation on the 1st of September, and would apply to all schemes which were sanctioned after that date. He was prepared to give a, pledge that no scheme should be approved of by the Department between the present time and the 1st of September.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Amendment of 32 & 33 Viet. c. 56. s. 17. as to holders of office being retained on governing body).

MR. F. S. POWELL

moved, in page 2, line 25, the omission of the word "express" believing that the Commissioners construed it too strictly.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

could not consent, by omitting the word, to widen the clause, which he would not have proposed himself, but which was recommended by the Committee upstairs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEYGATE

proposed to insert, in line 26, after "endowment" the words or of the statutes or regulations made by the Founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years of his death."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the clause related to the appointment of ex officio clerical Governors, and it was one which he would not have proposed himself. Having been adopted by the Committee, however, he felt it his duty to submit it to the House. It provided that ex officio clerical Governors might be appointed where the wills of the Founders expressly contained a provision to that effect, and he could not consent to the introduction of any words widening the operation of the clause.

In answer to Mr. F. S. POWELL,

MR. HEYGATE

said, he would assimilate his Amendment to that placed on the Paper by the hon. Member, and move the addition of the words "which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the principal Act."

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 26, after the word "endowment," to insert the words "or of the statutes or regulations made by the Founder or under his authority in his lifetime, or within fifty years of his death, which terms have been observed down to the commencement of the principal Act."—(Mr. Heygate.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 87: Majority 53.

On Question? That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

MR. DILLWYN,

in moving to leave out the clause, said, it was a Church of England question, and the ex officio member who would be retained in office by the clause was generally the clergyman of the parish. He objected to ex officio members who were named in trusts being confirmed in office by this clause. The will of the Founder should be interpreted in accordance with the spirit of the time. His view was that when property was once dedicated to the public, after a reasonable lapse of time, the public should have the right to say how it should be administered and to deal with the endowment. Ex officio clerical members of the Board might find themselves unable to work harmoniously with the elected members. In Wales the great majority of the population were Dissenters; and therefore the life appointment of the Church of England clergyman would be obnoxious.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

must ask the Committee not to consent to the omission of this clause, the effect of which it was quite possible to exaggerate. His own individual opinion was that it was a mistake to have a trustee appointed for life as an ex officio member; but if the Committee struck out the clause, although it might or might not endanger the passing of the Bill, he felt sure that the House of Lords would strike out every scheme in which the will of the Founder was thus interfered with. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

asked why it was that the clergyman should be placed in this preferential position by statute? As a rule he would, by his position, by almost certain of appointment by the Commissioners. He believed the Government, by pressing this point, would lose their own supporters in the country. As to the possibility of the Lords taking the course which had been supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not think that consideration ought to weigh with the Committee.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

could not consent to exclude the clause from the Bill, and called upon the Committee to oppose the Amendment.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he must press his Amendment to a division, as it in- volved a question of principle and not of practice.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 84; Noes 40: Majority 44.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Extension of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 56. s. 19. as to schools excepted from the provisions as to religion).

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he wished to move an Amendment which he considered one of considerable importance. This clause introduced a principle entirely novel, and which had never before been introduced into England—namely, it declared that all endowments connected with religion were to be considered non-religious, unless made subsequent to the reign of William and Mary—that was, in effect to say that all endowments up to that time were not to be respected, because they were made before the Act of Toleration. There were just as strong Church endowments made before that time as since. Even in the case of the Irish Church Disestablishment and Disendowment Act the Government respected the endowments which had been made long previously to the time of the Toleration Act. Were they going to say that in this country they should not be respected? He begged therefore to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "endowment" to "if" in line 35.

Amendment proposed, in line 32, to leave out from the word "endowment," to the word "if," in line 35.—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)

Question proposed. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the clause was intended to widen the term by which under Section 19 of the old Act schools were excepted from Section 17 and one or two other sections. That was a question which occupied a long time in Committee, and several propositions were made very much enlarging the scope of the clause. He himself would have preferred that the clause had been left as it stood so far as regarded exceptions; but as now proposed, it was not without argument in its favour. When the majority of the members of the Governing Body, or the principal teacher, or the scholars edu- cated in the establishment were declared by the original endowment to belong to a particular denomination it would be considered a denominational school. That was the first condition. The second condition was that the endowment must have been made under such circumstances as must render it plain that it belonged to a. particular denomination. It was only fair to require that in the latter case the words should show a real denominational intention. He must, for those reasons, oppose the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 88; Noes 40: Majority 48.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he would not move the other Amendments which stood in his name; but would now look to another quarter to remedy the injustice which had been done him by the Committee.

MR. HEYGATE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 35, after "terms," to insert, "or manifest intent."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

declined to accept the Amendment, on the ground that it would be very difficult to interpret the words. But with regard to the remark which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), he must say that, both in Committee and in that House, the Government had shown a great desire to meet legitimate objections as far as they possibly could, and certainly they had to show that desire contrary to the feeling of many of their own Friends.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COLLINS

moved, as Amendments, in page 3, line 3, after "of," insert— "or shall attend the public worship;" and in line 10, after "section," insert— In any such scheme it shall be provided that not less than two-thirds of the governing body shall always he members of such church, sect, or denomination. He did so, formally, to prevent the Amendments being lost, through the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), in whose name they stood on the Paper.

Amendment negatived.

On Question. That the Clause stand part of the Bill?

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,

in moving its omission, said, that Clause 19 of the Endowed Schools Act excepted certain schools from the operation of some provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. The clause now before the House extended these exceptions, and enacted that when by the statutes of the Founder, or by statutes made within 50 years of his death, the members of any Governing Body, or the advantage of any endowment, were confined to any particular sect, such limitation should hold good in perpetuity. Now, that clause seemed to him entirely in opposition to the spirit of recent legislation; it was a distinctly retrograde step—a clause for the perpetuation of schisms and sectarianism. It was quite right to leave great powers in the hands of testators, to allow almost any experiment, provided only the time was limited. But these endowments were not really endowments of religion; they were endowments of individual opinions. It was said that the law of England abhorred perpetuities; but no perpetuity was so bad as that of an erroneous or untenable opinion. In fact, they might with truth say that these endowments tended to the multiplication and perpetuation of temporary errors. They were attempts to influence the opinion of future generations, not by appeals to their intellect, but by taking advantage of the pressure of pecuniary necessities. The Universities had very wisely been thrown open, and yet it was proposed to maintain a spirit of sectarianism in the case of schools. He did not deny that there were advantages in the existence of honest and healthy differences of opinion on religious matters. Nonconformity had done great things for the country, but then it was tested and ennobled by self-sacrifice. A variety of religious sects, dead in themselves, but galvanized by money into unnatural vitality, would be an unmitigated evil. He begged to move the rejection of the clause.

MR. DILLWYN

hoped the Committee would not be deterred by the threat which had been held out by the right hon. Member for Oxford. University, who had just left the House, from doing their duty. Because he had failed in making a trifling alteration in this clause he had distinctly threatened the House that he was not satisfied with their decision, and would appeal to "another place." It was the first time he had ever heard such a threat held out. Unless there were good grounds for retaining the clause, he should not be influenced by any such threats; but vote for its omission.

COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN

said, he had heard the language used by his right hon. Friend, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that no threat whatever had been used. His right hon. Friend had been entirely misunderstood. He merely said, as his Amendment had not been adopted by the Committee, he hoped it would be adopted in "another place." His right hon. Friend was the last person in the world who would venture to threaten the House in any way whatever.

MR. DILLYWN

was in the recollection of the House, and he hoped the House would express its opinion whether he was right or wrong in his interpretation of the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman.

DR. LYON PLAYFAIR

observed that, as the clause had been brought in in the interests of conciliation, there was much to be said in its favour. But after what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, his feelings were quite altered respecting it. He had taken down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and they were—" That he would look to another place' for that justice which was denied him by the Committee." After they had been told that the clause was to be altered in a certain sense in "another House," the best thing would be to leave no clause to be altered, by omitting it.

MR. F. S. POWELL

thought there was nothing disrespectful to the House in expressing the hope that in "another place" a different decision would be arrived at. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Maidstone, he took exception to the hon. Member's statement that this class of endowments were intended to promote, not religion, but the opinions respecting religion held by the founders, and were therefore not entitled to be defended by the law of England. The same doctrine struck at the foundation of every Dissenting place of worship in the kingdom. The maintenance of these endowments was in accordance with the principles of justice. He supported the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

rather regretted the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think it was intended to bear the interpretation which had been given to it. To be candid, he must say that that was a clause which he proposed in the Committee in the interests of conciliation, and he thought it was a fair addition to Section 19 of the principal Act. There was fairness in saying, as it did, that since the Toleration Act, no endowment, in which, by the original instrument and by invariable custom since that time, it had been required that the majority of the Governing Body should be members of a certain denomination, and that the principal teacher should belong to that denomination, should be interfered with, and he did not think it went beyond the principle of the original section. He could understand those who objected to the original provision objecting to that also. The reason why it was proposed was that there were certain endowments which everybody expected would come under the provisions of the original Act which had not come under it. It must be remembered that it was even possible for a Church school to have a majority of Governors belonging to Dissenting denominations; at any rate, provision was made for the admission of Dissenters as members of the Governing Body, as well as for meeting the conscientious views of the parents whose children might attend such schools.

MR. CLARE READ

remarked that if small men made observations similar to that attributed to the right hon. Gentleman no indignation was aroused by them. ["Oh, oh"] When the Agricultural Children's Bill was in Committee of the House, and a certain Amendment had been carried, he said he would not trouble the Committee to divide again, because he hoped the Bill would be set right in "another place." No indignant remark was uttered when he made that observation.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, it was their duty to express their honest convictions, and to leave those in "another place" to do the same. Most of the schools which would come under Clause 19 were in Cathedral cities, where, as might be inferred from the course of that discussion, there was a good percentage of Dissenters. The result of passing that clause would be to prevent many of these Dissenters from being on the Governing Bodies of the schools, for it had been the practice of the Commissioners to confine co-optative appointments to the members of the Church of England. It was both unjust and impolitic to admit Dissenters to a trust, and at the same time to provide that in no case should there be a majority of them. If they had civil and parochial rights, why should they be treated in this exceptional manner? Why were they not to exercise the rights of the majority, if they were the majority? What was done from expediency in the case of the Irish Church was no guide as to what should be done in utilizing schools which were of a national character. So far from being privileged schools they were substantially national schools. What civil, parochial, or educational right had a Dissenter given up by building a chapel and providing for religious services there? He did not thereby subject himself to any disability, in respect of property or privilege of the Church by law established.

MR. HEYGATE

said, he should support the clause, as it was a small step in the right direction, but it failed to meet the justice of the case.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 88; Noes 48: Majority 40.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 11) Amendment of 32 and 33 Viet., c. 56, s. 37, as to approval of Committee of Council on Education to schemes).

MR. CRAUFURD

moved, in page 4, line the omission of the words "such scheme may be approved of by Her Majesty without being laid before Parliament." He objected to these words, becsuse they took away the control exercised by Parliament over these Commissioners. It was becoming rather fashionable on the Treasury Bench to talk of the inconvenience of the control of the House of Commons, and they knew that with regard to a certain contract the Minister principally concerned had expressed his opinion that Parliament should have no control over such matters.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the effect of the Amendment would be that no appeal, such as at present existed, would be possible; and that was hardly what the hon. Gentleman was aiming at. The Committee thought there were a great number of schemes which it was not worth while burdening Parliament with, and which it was desirable to pass without any unnecessary delay.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Continuance of powers of making schemes).

MR. COLLINS

thought it would be enough if the Commission were continued for three years, instead of five, and would move accordingly in line 28, page 6, to leave out from "one thousand eight hundred and seventy six," to the end of the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

complained that an Amendment of his, limiting the duration of the Commission to one year, although handed in to the Clerk at the Table prior to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Boston, was not placed upon the Paper in its proper course. Owing to that arrangement, the words which he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) proposed to amend were swept away, before he had the opportunity of doing so; but nevertheless, he would stand upon his right, and move the substitution of 1874 for 1876. The Government had not yielded a single point in Committee that night, and now the Vice President of the Council did not scruple to try by taking advantage of a printer's error to shut out an Amendment which challenged the policy of prolonging the existence of the Commission for more than one year. But there was such a thing as being "too clever by half." The Government had brought in three educational measures this Session professedly founded upon a policy of conciliation. The first foundered in a calm sea, and the Ministry had to take to the Brighton boat to get safe to land. They saved the second Bill by throwing over half the cargo; and now upon the third Bill, the House could not agree upon a single clause, although the Bill had had the advantage of a patient examination by a Committee upstairs. The matter became of the more importance when hon. Members were threatened with the loss of their seats, if they did not vote according to the dictation of the Birmingham League. He regarded that as an exceedingly bad Bill, and had voted against the second reading with great pleasure. He appealed to the conscience and fair play of the country against the proposal to increase the arbitrary power of these three Commissioners, and should move accordingly to substitute "1874" for "1876," in page 6, line 28.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the date 1876 having disappeared from the clause in the last Amendment, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, substituting for it 1874 must fall to the ground.

MR. CRAUFURD

complained that he had an Amendment on the Paper, which should have precedence of the one now under discussion.

MR. COLLINS,

by leave, withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

moved, in page 6, line 28, to leave out "76" in order to insert "74."

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he understood that some remarks had been made in his absence on something he had said at the close of the discussion on a former clause. He did not go out of the House at the moment, and he should have thought if any hon. Gentleman wished to comment on what he had said, he would have preferred to do it in his presence rather than when he was away. But if he were to speak over again, he should say exactly the same thing as before. He did not recognize that this House had an absolute right to determine everything, irrespective of the people outside the House, or the Lords, who were a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature. What he had said was that, in his belief, injustice had been done in some of these clauses, and that he looked to the Lords to remedy it. [Cries of "Order!"] He was quite ready to obey a call of Order from the Chair.

MR. GLADSTONE

It is the duty of any hon. Member of the House to rise to a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not warranted in repeating a speech made on a former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman is appealing to Members, and is repeating what he said. I say that is not in conformity with Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is, I believe, the universal feeling in this House to concede to any hon. Member a hearing when he desires to offer a personal ex- planation. In this respect I think considerable latitude is allowed. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman had no intention to exceed, nor does he exceed that latitude.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that he did not wish to exceed that latitude; but he was in Order, because it must be remembered that he was speaking in Committee, and he had a perfect right to repeat everything and go into every case connected with the Bill. The Motion now before the House was, whether the Endowed Schools Commission should continue one year or five, and he understood that in his absence, some hon. Gentlemen had made some remarks on what he had said. He was quite sure that they would have been glad to have made them in his presence; but what he said was, that he considered some injustice had been done, but that he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing any further, but that he would look for justice on those points "elsewhere", and nothing more. He did not hesitate to say what his meaning was; he might appeal to the people, or the House of Lords, and he was quite entitled to say that he considered the people to over-ride that House, and the House of Lords to be co-ordinate with it. It was not said in an offensive manner, and he in no way threatened the House, and in point of fact the right hon. Gentleman might just as well be accused of doing so when he had told them that they must do certain things, or it would bring about a collision with the House of Lords. He had never been wanting in respect to any hon. Member, nor had he ever disparaged the House of Commons. On the contrary, he should stand up just as much for the privileges of that House as the House of Lords.

MR. DILLWYN

explained that he did express his regret at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the time he was making the remarks, and what the right hon. Gentleman now stated quite confirmed what he had said. He admitted that he complained that the right hon. Gentleman had threatened them by dangling the House of Lords before their eyes; but if he had misapprehended him, he must express his regret.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER

said, he thought they might now go on with the business of the Committee. His hon. Friend had proposed to omit the word 1876 and substitute 1874. The Government were willing to give up the two years, and thus continue the Commission till 1876; but they could not be blamed for supporting the provisions of their own Bill. He was surprised that they should be accused of unwillingness to make concessions, after the one they had just made. Every clause they proposed was in accordance with the views of the Committee upstairs. He hoped the Committee would not accept the limit of one year as proposed.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the decisions of the Committee upstairs were very much the reflex in their essential part of the will of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would therefore urge the hon. Member for Finsbury not to trouble the Committee by dividing.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. COLLINS, Amendment made, in page 6, line 28, by leaving out from "seventy-six" to end of clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

proposed a clause which would open to the graduates of any British University the office of head master in any endowed school, which was now restricted to graduates of Oxford and Cambridge.

A Clause (Graduate of any University of the United Kingdom, if otherwise fit, shall be held qualified where the statutes require the head master to be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge,)—(Sir John Lubbock,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

opposed the clause, which was altogether beyond the scope of the Bill. It appeared to be a very mild, benevolent clause, but it would over-ride the constitution of all endowed schools. He would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should bring in a Bill on some Wednesday next Session for the purpose of carrying out the object he had in view.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

defended the clause, pointing out that a similar provision had been introduced into every scheme already sanctioned which had become law, and that to their honour be it said, neither Oxford nor Cambridge had made any objection. The provision that masters and head masters should be graduates of Oxford or Cambridge was not intended to favour those Universities, but to secure competent men. The degrees granted by the University of London were as thorough and complete as any other degrees in the world; and. he believed there was now no British University the degrees of which were open to criticism. The Committee, therefore, need not fear if they adopted the clause that they would be lowering the standard of qualification for masters. That was a question which could not be determined by a case of individual hardship, but must be dealt with on liberal principles. If necessary, however, he was prepared to show that it was no theoretical grievance which would be remedied by the clause.

COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN

observed that the term "British" would exclude graduates of Trinity College, Dublin.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he would alter the phraseology to graduates of "any University in the United Kingdom."

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, the clause differed entirely from the whole framework of the Bill, and of the existing Act. It was not by the provisions of the measure that schools were affected, but by schemes framed under the Act. He did not object to the qualification in favour of a graduate of the London University; but he objected to have an isolated provision acting of itself, and by itself, instead of by schemes adapted to the several eases.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, it seemed to him that the clause could not be really objected to. He hoped that the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) would withdraw his opposition to it, or at all events, that the Committee would not think it necessary to divide.

MR. MOWBRAY

complained that the hon. Member for Maidstone had proposed his Amendment without one word of explanation. That was only another instance of the irregularities which had characterized the proceedings of that evening.

MR. HENLEY

said, that if in past times people were foolish enough to give their money for these purposes, expecting that their wishes would be abided by, he did not see why they should not have full power to choose the graduates of what Universities they liked. It seemed to be the fashion now to try to upset everything. The Scotch Universities existed at the time the Founders made this choice, and he thought that their wishes ought to be regarded. The clause might have something in it, but it certainly introduced a very new and. wide principle which was quite alien to the whole framework of the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he would divide the Committee against it, as he could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the opposition to the clause.

SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN

supported the clause. No one could object to putting all the Universities on a level. The objection, therefore, was merely a technical one.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

thought the present was another instance of unnecessary legislation. He thought the proposed alteration could be effected by scheme, and objected to the insertion in an Act of Parliament, on a totally different subject, of a provision that would place all the Universities on the same level, and make no distinction between the ancient institutions of Oxford and Cambridge and the mushroom Universities of modern times. The question, if raised at all, should be considered in a separate measure.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, he could not help expressing his surprise at the opposition of the right hon. and hon. Members for Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He believed it would be for the advantage of those Universities that the clause should be inserted. He thought no disrespect could be more marked than that which excluded a graduate of a University from equal competition with the members of the older ones.

DR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he would remind the Committee that the schemes of the Commissioners included many subjects of modern learning, such as physical science, and therefore it was desirable that they should extend the area of selection for the teachers of these schools as much as possible.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

asked why they should over-ride the will of a Founder who designed to benefit graduates of Oxford? He thought the clause went further than the hon. Mem- ber intended. If its operation were confined to existing Universities in the United Kingdom it would be a great improvement.

MR. CRAUFURD

objected that there was no reciprocity in the clause, and that if it passed in its present form London University might still enjoy any monopolies of its own.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 65: Majority 76.

On Question? That the Clause be added to the Bill.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that before the clause was added to the Bill he wished to propose an Amendment which would place all the Universities in the kingdom on an equal footing. He accordingly moved the omission of the words "the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge," to make way for the insertion of the words "a University graduate."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

pointed out that the Amendment would virtually exclude Oxford and Cambridge, even if named in the will of the Founder, and he suggested that the better way would be to omit "Oxford and Cambridge," and insert "some specified University or Universities," which would meet the difficulty.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

agreed with the hon. Member as to the desirability of inserting such words.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

moved the insertion of the words "existing at the time of the passing of this Act," the object being to restrict the clause to existing Universities.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that Universities did not rise spontaneously, like mushrooms. No University could be created without the consent of the Crown, and they had had experience in the early part of that Session how very difficult it was to create Universities. He did not think the objection of the hon. Baronet ought to prevail. It was not an unreasonable presumption that if new Universities should be founded it would be because some better principle was devised which would make them something more in accordance with the spirit of the times; and he did not see, therefore, that the elder Universities were entitled to any particular preference in this matter, for if any fault were to be found with them, it was that they had been too easy in giving their degrees.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. LOCKE

moved the following new clause:— The power of the Commissioners under section ten of the Endowed Schools Act (the principal Act) for removing any governors or trustees of schools shall be restricted to those cases only in which it may appear that the governors or trustees have proved themselves unfitted for the execution of their duties by reason of neglect or mismanagement. He thought that some hon. Members were under the impression that it was the duty of the Governors to teach the boys. In fact, their duty was to see that the establishment was managed according to the scheme laid down for that purpose. Any unnecessary removal, or the introduction of new Governors unacquainted with the management, would only tend to produce confusion, and he hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) would accept what he considered a very mild proposal. If he could not agree to it in the shape proposed he trusted that the object would be met by some other words.

New Clause (As to removal of governors or trustees of Endowed Schools,)—(Mr. Locke,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

opposed the clause, which, he said, if carried, would put the whole of this matter in the same position as it would have assumed under the original Resolution proposed in the Committee by the hon. Member for Kent, and which was rejected by the whole of the Committee, with the exception of its Mover and Seconder. Restrictions were already numerous enough, and it would be most difficult to carry out reforms under the conditions which the clause proposed.

MR. HEYGATE

thought it would be wise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause, as it would have the effect of lessening the unpopu- larity of the Commissioners in the country.

MR. A. JOHNSTON

observed that the unpopularity of the Commissioners had been so often talked about, that people began to believe in it. According to his own experience, the action of the Commissioners was welcome, popular, and satisfactory.

MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE

supported the clause, though he had no expectation that it would be carried. He thought that trustees who had faithfully and without legitimate complaint fulfilled their duties to their schools ought not to be liable to removal.

Question put.

House resumed.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 146: Majority 46.

Schedules agreed to.

MR. BECKETT-DENISON

gave Notice that on the Report he would move, as an Amendment to Clause 13, a Proviso to the effect that whenever any Motion for an Address to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her assent from any proposed scheme of the Commissioners was made in either House of Parliament, it should be incumbent on the President or the Vice President of the Council to move the assent of the House to such scheme within two months. The object of the Proviso was to prevent the inconvenience which had been suffered in some instances from Motions in the hands of private Members expiring by effluxion of time.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.