SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 August 1859)

§ LORD CRANWORTH
in moving the second reading of the Bill, briefly stated to the House the facts of the Ilminster case, and the decision of the Lords Justices, that Dissenters were not eligible as trustees for that school. From that decision an appeal was made to their Lordships which had not yet been heard. This case and others which were of a similar character had called attention to the propriety of making some alteration in the law. Under these circumstances, he and a noble Friend of his had thought of introducing some measure on the subject; but in the meantime a Bill was brought into the other House by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) which was referred to a Select Committee, one of the most active Members of which Was the late Solicitor General, and on the part of the Government there was the Vice President of the Committee on Education, and besides them there were Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and several other persons whose character and station demanded respect and attention. They considered the Bill with such extreme care and attention, and altered it so much, that when it came out of the Committee there was not a clause of it remained the same. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, in con- 1111 sequence, withdrew it altogether. In that state of things several persons connected with the Ilminster school, feeling that what they were fighting for was a national question, came and consulted him as to the course it was best for them to take to attain their object. He looked at the Bill as it came from the Select Committee, and it appeared to him to be a rational Bill, and only defective in one particular. The Bill first provided, that wherever in the last twenty-five years it had been the practice in any of these charities to appoint Dissenters trustees, that practice should be lawful, unless there was in the original deed of foundation something expressly forbidding it. He owned he thought that did not go far enough; because if in the Ilminster case, where the trustees were now all Churchmen, no Dissenters were appointed for the next twenty-five years, such lapse would prevent any being appointed in future; and that was the reason, as he understood, of the hon. Member withdrawing the Bill. But there was another clause which related to the children to be educated in the schools. It had not been the practice in schools of this kind to insist on the children of Dissenters going to church with the other children; but the Bill as it came from the Select Committee guarded most scrupulously against any possible abuse in this respect, for it provided that in any scheme which was to be made under the sanction of the Court for the constitution of an educational charity, it should be lawful for the Attorney General, or any person interested in the charity, to apply to the Court for its sanction, and there should then he introduced into the scheme what was called "the conscience clauses"—that if the parents of a child wished him to have the benefit of the school without being taught the doctrines of the Church of England, he might do so. Considering that this Bill had substantially received the sanction of the House of Commons, and that some legislation on the subject was urgently needed, he had ventured to reintroduce the Bill in their Lordships' House, and he trusted their Lordships would sanction its principle by reading it the second time. They ought to treat these as national institutions, and there was no reason in the world why 300 years after their establishment they should feel bound by the exact words of the founders, who, if they had lived in these days, would probably have desired that the school should be open to all. If this Bill were passed before the 1112 prorogation, it would be a great boon; but if not, he thought that this discussion and any expression of opinion on the part of their Lordships would have a good effect.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
agreed with the noble and learned Lord that the present state of the law on this subject was such as required amendment. The noble and learned Lord had stated what had passed in the Committee of the other House on the subject, and the general concurrence of opinion with respect to it by the members of that Committee, among whom was the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government. The fact of the noble and learned Lord having looked over the Bill, and having brought it forward, went far to convince him that it was a Bill which it would be desirable to pass. On the other hand, it was certain to give rise to considerable discussion, and considering the late period of the Session there was not the slightest chance of passing it through the other House. Though some Dissenters were in favour of the Bill there were others who had strong objections to it in its present shape. He did not say that the expression of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord would be of no use in the matter. On the other hand, it was hardly desirable that their Lordships should be committed to a positive opinion on the Bill at present. He therefore thought the noble and learned Lord had better abandon the second reading for the present.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, although it was now proposed that the Bill should be withdrawn from the second reading, still he thought it desirable, in reference to future legislation, that they should understand distinctly what was the meaning and intention of the measure. Speaking in his individual capacity, he fully concurred in the statement that the difficulty which had arisen in the Ilminster case had better be settled, and though it was a considerable concession on the part of the Church of England, yet he thought that that concession had better be made. He did not know that the grievance of the complainants was, after all, very great. The grievance was that certain persons had got into a position which the law did not allow them to occupy; the Judges decided that they ought not to be there and they had been compelled to withdraw from that position. That seemed hardly to be a very great grievance. He looked, he confessed, with a little suspicion on these grievances 1113 of their Dissenting brethren. It was often an admirable thing for a person to have a grievance, and he believed that the prosperity of many persons in the world had arisen from having got a grievance. But he did not think that their Dissenting brethren had in this instance got a good grievance; and, being dissatisfied with having so few grievances, they seemed determined to make the most of the few they had, and to get a remedy which went far beyond the grievance complained of. With respect to the present Bill, if the noble and learned Lord had confined himself to the clause which adopted the twenty-five years' prescription, he thought that there would have been no opposition to it; but the other clause seemed to demand very serious consideration. In the Petition he had laid on the table from the Society for the Promotion of Education among the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church, the petitioners stated their conviction that that particular clause was likely to lead to the destruction of their society. The noble and learned Lord in his speech treated this question as one simply concerning those old foundations made at a time when there was no Dissent in the country. Now, there was nothing in the Bill to restrict it to these old foundations. It was a Bill providing that every endowed school in the country might have this "conscience clause," as it was called, introduced into the trusts. The noble and learned Lord said that the "conscience clause" would be introduced merely when a scheme was applied for by the Attorney General; but it struck him that any single person who considered himself interested in any endowed school in the country might make it imperative on the Judges to introduce it. If so, it altered the general view of the matter very greatly, and the National Society having considered the subject with the assistance of high legal authority, with the aid of Judges of the land and others, came to the conclusion that it did appear that any person applying to the court might force this clause to be introduced into the management of any of our endowed schools. Then came the question as to what was an endowed school. A school had an endowment, he presumed, which possessed a house of the value of £2 for the schoolmaster, or which had a field given it by the clergyman of the parish. An endowed school was a school with an endowment, however small. There were 4,000 endowed schools in this country, 1114 and by far the overwhelming majority of the endowments varied from £5 to £10 a year. Now, as no school could be conducted for £5 or £10, there were added to these endowments very large subscriptions, on which depended the whole usefulness of the schools. A great number of these subscriptions was raised in connection with the Society for the Education of the Poor in the Principles if the Established Church, and great anxiety and confusion would be the result of the 1,500 endowed schools in union with that society should come under the provisions of the present Bill. It might be asked what great harm would follow, as the proposition was merely that that should be done by law which was done already in many cashes voluntarily—namely, the introduction of the children of Dissenters to the schools without their being compelled to learn the formularies of the Church of England. But it was one thing to do a matter of that kind voluntarily, and another to have it forced on them compulsorily by Act of Parliament; and the members of the society which he was called to represent on this occasion, having seriously considered the subject, believed that if the Bill passed exactly in its present shape, it would create such alarm among their subscribers—many of whom were persons who held strong opinions on the subject of Church authority—that there really would be an end of the Society. He believed that his noble and learned Friend had no intention in the slightest degree to interfere with the schools of the National Society, but this only showed the inconvenience of introducing such a measure at a period when it could not be properly considered. The clergy of the Church of England would like to have the subject more completely examined, and the important questions connected with it taken more fully into consideration by their Lordships' House. If it were desirable that all the schools in England—for it was of no use talking about endowed schools only—should have what was called a "conscience clause" introduced into their management, by all means let it be done; but let it be done after a very careful and deliberate consideration of the whole question. This was a most important question. He believed that no fewer than thirty-five petitions had been presented by the noble and learned Lord for removing these grievances, but from what he had seen in the organ of a certain society for agitating 1115 the country about the grievances of Dissenters, by giving lectures and getting up petitions, he did not think these grievances were so great as they might at first sight appear to be from the number of the petitions; and however great the grievance might be, the remedy applied to the malady was exactly one of those which were calculated to put the patient in a far more robust state of health than he enjoyed before the malady assailed him.

§ LORD KINGSDOWN
said, he did not affect to know what effect the introduction of this Bill would have on the other House of Parliament, but he thought it would be far better for the noble and learned Lord at the present moment to content himself with the expression of opinion which he had elicited, and not to attempt to press the matter on Parliament during the present Session.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
, while concurring in the expediency of not taking the second reading of the Bill, could not help expressing pain at some of the sentiments which had fallen from the right rev. Prelate with regard to his Dissenting brethren. As regarded the Bill itself he believed it had received the fullest and best consideration by the most learned and able men representing both sides of the question in the other House. It was true that the wishes of the deceased donor should be respected; but he believed that if the founders of these schools were alive now, they would be willing to accede to the proposition now made. But, under all the circumstances, he would advise his noble and learned Friend not to press the second reading of the Bill. Before he sat down he must express a hope that the sentiments of the right rev. Prelate were not those generally entertained in the Church. He himself thought that legislation on this subject was indispensable; for if the law remained unaltered, children might be prevented from attending any of these schools unless they conformed strictly to all the rites of the Church of England; and it would be a cruel thing that Dissenters should be prevented from having the full benefit of those institutions which were meant for all.

§ LORD REDESDALE
thought that the Lord Chancellor had not quite accurately represented what the right rev. Prelate had said. He (Lord Redesdale) understood him, not to object to the principle, but only to some parts of the measure; one of his objections being that there was no definition of what was meant by the 1116 term endowed schools. This phrase, if unlimited by any definition, would apply to many modern schools, and in reference to which a "conscience clause" might be applied for; and with respect to the observation of the Lord Chancellor, that deceased donors, if now alive, would not object to the proposed change, it must be borne in mind that the Bill at once affected living donors. He thought that there was in the Bill a great deal of matter which would form a good foundation for a future measure, but that the details were faulty.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
believed that he had no cause for regret in consequence of having brought this matter before the House, for he thought that there was not an imaginary, but a real practical grievance, pressing hardly upon a great many persons. Under the circumstances, and with this general expression of opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill he did not think it necessary to proceed further with the measure during the present Session.