Lords Sitting of 15 July 1869

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading- Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal * (195).
Second Reading—Children, &c. Protection (84), negatived; Pensions Commutation * (138); Judicial Statistics (Scotland) * (151).
Committee—Endowed Schools (139–192); Bishops Resignation * (171–193); Companies Clauses Act (1863) Amendment* (147); Poor Law Union Loans * (148–194).
Committee—Report—Poor Law Board Provisional Orders Confirmation* (142).
Report—Ecclesiastical Courts* (191); Court of Common Pleas (County Palatine of Lancaster)* (186); Diplomatic Salaries, &c* (128).
Third Reading—New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment* (184), and passed.
Withdrawn—Vaccination Amendment * (85).

CHILDREN, &c, PROTECTION BILL.
(The Marquess Townshend.)
CHILDREN, &c, PROTECTION BILL.

  (NO. 84.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that although the previous Bills he had had the honour to submit to their Lordships during the Session had met with an unfavourable reception, he nevertheless thought it his duty to attempt, as far as possible, to mitigate the sufferings to which many helpless classes were exposed. He had often been struck by cases brought before the magistrates in which children, pupils, and servants had been treated with inexcusable severity, but which the magistrates were frequently obliged to dismiss, owing to the difficulty of drawing the line between punishment and cruel treatment. He thought the best way of putting an end to this difficulty was to make the infliction of personal

  1865
  punishment on these classes altogether illegal, and for this purpose he had introduced this Bill. The 1st clause provided that the birch rod should be the only instrument used in punishing persons under sixteen; the 2nd, that no schoolmaster should inflict corporal punishment on any pupil under sixteen for inattention to his studies; the 3rd, that no child under sixteen should be struck on the head or face; and the 4th prohibited any master or mistress from striking or inflicting any corporal punishment whatever on any apprentice or servant; the penalty for any of these offences was a penalty not exceeding £5 or two calendar months.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess Townshend.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, this was one of the most extraordinary Bills that had ever been presented to Parliament. Clause 1 declared it to be unlawful for anyone but a parent to inflict corporal punishment on a child except with a birch rod. This absurd enactment would debar an uncle or aunt with whom a child might be staying from giving it a "smack" with the palm of the hand on the face or the use of anything other than a birch rod. He objected to the application of the Bill to Scotland. In that country the birch rod was unknown as an instrument of chastisement, and the youth of Scotland would probably object to its introduction. He thought their Lordships had some ground of complaint against the noble Marquess for the perpetual introduction of crude and useless measures, and raising discussion upon them. It might be a harmless amusement when their Lordships had nothing to do; but it was not becoming that their time should be occupied by Bills of this kind when there was important business on the Paper. He moved that the second reading be deferred for three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a,this day three months.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILI—(No. 139.)
(The Lord President.)
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILI—(No. 139.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the second reading having occurred on a day when many of their Lordships were necessarily absent, having received Her Majesty's commands, but little discussion took place on that stage. He did not intend, however, on this occasion, to raise a debate on the general scope of the measure, but simply to refer to that large and excellent foundation, Christ's Hospital, of which he was a Governor. There was, no doubt, a great deal in the Bill which would prove beneficial in the case of many endowed schools throughout the country which had become ineffective, or which had been diverted to purposes wholly contrary to the intentions of the founders: but that charge certainly could not be made against Christ's Hospital, which was one of the finest and noblest institutions in the country, and had been a great blessing to an enormous number of the poor and ignorant throughout the country. Indeed, the Royal Commissioners themselves admitted in their Report that some consideration seemed to be justly due to the past history of so remarkable a school, and to the attachment which it had inspired in the hearts of many of its scholars; and, they added—"Christ's Hospital is a thing without parallel in the country, and sui generis." Now, it was on account of its being without a parallel and sui generis that he wished to press on the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (Earl de Grey), the propriety of treating it in an exceptional manner, and of excluding it from the operation of this Bill, which would otherwise have a very disastrous effect upon it. The Commissioners described it in these terms—
  "Christ's Hospital is a boarding school offering free education, and drawing its scholars from all England. It has ancient traditions and venerable memories; and it has in an especial degree succeeded in inspiring the very warmest attachment in the minds of its pupils."
  Mr. Fearon, one of the Assistant Commissioners, stated—

  1867
  "Since my Report was printed and submitted to the Commissioners I have had notice of certain alterations. These alterations will tend to palliate, if not entirely to remove, some of the defects which I have described in the present management of the schools of Christ's Hospital; and the action of the Governors in this matter, so quickly taken after my visit to the hospital, furnishes a new proof, if any be wanted, of their genuine anxiety for the welfare of the institution."
  This was a proof that the Governors were perfectly alive to the necessity of keeping pace with the times, and that they were anxious to remedy any defects which might have crept into a system which had lasted so many years. He believed, indeed, that a scheme for materially improving the education given there had been under their consideration—particularly in relation to the school at Hertford—but, with the prospect of impending legislation, it had been felt to be impossible to proceed with it. Mr. Fearon acknowledged that Christ's Hospital was a most valuable and useful institution, and one, of whose past history and present fame the nation might justly be proud. It had existed for upwards of 300 years; and he (the Duke of Richmond) should have had no apprehension of such an institution being interfered with, had he not observed that very extensive powers were to be given to the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill. The 10th clause enabled them to alter the constitution, rights, and powers of any Governing Body; to incorporate any such body, with such powers as they thought fit, to remove any Governing Body; and in the event of any corporation, incorporated solely for educational purposes, to dissolve such corporation. They might, therefore, annihilate the present government of Christ's Hospital; and he doubted whether it would come within the terms of the 14th clause, exempting certain institutions which had been endowed within the last fifty years, for he feared that the date of its foundation would exclude it from that provision. A circumstance had recently occurred which made him somewhat apprehensive on this point. He bore cheerful testimony to the high character of the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton), to his classical attainments, and to his interest in everything pertaining to education; but some remarks made by the noble Lord at a meeting of the Social Science
  1868
  Association on the 8th instant, presided over by Lord Stanley, had made him apprehensive that Christ's Hospital would be dealt with in a very injurious way by the three new Commissioners, of whom the noble Lord was to be the chief. The noble Lord, taking part in a discussion on a paper by Mr. Arthur Hobhouse, who was to be one of his colleagues on the Commission, upon the limitations which should be placed on dispositions of property to public uses, remarked that under this Bill the Commissioners would have very large powers of carrying out the principles affirmed by Mr. Hobhouse. Referring to their being both members of the Commission, he went on to say—
  "Under these circumstances, he felt it incumbent upon him to state clearly and publicly the manner in which he should feel it his duty to use the power committed to him; while, at the same time, he could but repeat a doubt which he had already expressed, whether the Government would act wisely in intrusting such large powers to men who were already publicly committed to the manner in which they would exercise them. For this very reason he at first declined the Chief Commissionership under the Act, and he still doubted whether the managers of endowed schools had not some cause of complaint in not being placed under the control of men of less pronounced views on this subject than himself, who had taken so prominent a part in the Schools Inquiry Commission, and Mr. Hobhouse."
  Now, he was not objecting to the appointment of the noble Lord, who, he was sure, would always carry out what he conscientiously believed to be for the benefit of the poor and of learning; but, the noble Lord having such strong views on the question, he feared the present government of Christ's Hospital was likely to suffer at his hands. The noble Lord went on to say—
  "He was quite prepared to say, that, after the lapse of a certain time, the mere will of the founder ought to be entirely disregarded."
  LORD LYTTELTONbelieved his words were "might be," and not "ought to be."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could not vouch for the verbal accuracy of the report; but the noble Lord's view evidently was that, after the lapse of time, the will of the founder might be disregarded. Now, with regard to Christ's Hospital, the founder might be said never to die, for new subscribers were constantly joining, who subscribed because they wished the same system as had hitherto existed to continue. The

  1869
  noble Lord, however, as a member of the Commission of Inquiry, probably took an active part in the drawing up of the Report, and if the Report contained any passages antagonistic to the present management of Christ's Hospital it might fairly be inferred that the noble Lord, in his new capacity of Chief Commissioner, would not be likely to depart from those words. Now, the Report stated—
  "We propose to keep the boarding school, to keep the free education, and to keep the area; but to fill it by competition and to re-organize the government."
  If this scheme were carried out, Christ's Hospital would cease to be a charitable institution for the relief of the poor and ignorant, and for classes that would otherwise have no means of obtaining education, and would be filled by sharp boys who were able to undergo a competitive examination. Noble Lords who were Governors were aware that many heartrending cases of destitution were brought under their notice by applications for admission to the institution, some of the applicants having belonged to the higher classes, but having become impoverished through unforeseen circumstances; and boys of all classes had thereby become useful and religious members of society. It was because he feared that these benefits would be henceforth denied to the class which had hitherto enjoyed them, and that the whole system which had been so great a blessing would be changed, that he was anxious for the exclusion of Christ's Hospital from the provisions of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he desired to make a few observations on this subject, having the honour to be President of Christ's Hospital, and naturally feeling much interest in its welfare and management. When this Bill was first introduced into Parliament, he and the other Governors of Christ's Hospital felt considerable alarm at the power vested in the Commissioners, they accordingly requested an interview with his noble Friend (the President of the Council) and the Vice President (Mr. W. E. Forster) with reference to the scope of the measure. His noble Friend (Earl De Grey) received them very cordially, and though he would not at all entertain the idea of specially exempting the institution from the Bill, he promised that, in conjunc-
  1870
  tion with the Vice President, he would consider the representations the deputation had laid before him, in order to see whether by some arrangements of details they could not be accepted, without conflict with the general scope of the Bill. Since that interview the Bill had been amended to a great extent in the sense urged by the Governors; and it now gave them the power of preparing a scheme, while it offered a safeguard against any adverse scheme being carried into operation until it had been laid before Parliament. The Governors, he believed, were perfectly satisfied as regarded the intentions of the Government; but he must confess that his views, and those of the Governors, in regard to the measure, had been considerably modified by the observations made by his noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton), who was to be Chief Commissioner, at a recent meeting at the Society of Arts. He had strong faith in his noble Friend's honest and straightforward discharge of any duty assigned to him under the Bill; but this very faith in his honesty made him the more alarmed by the speech to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had referred, and to which he had himself intended to call attention. His noble Friend, he was convinced, would do what he believed to be just and right; but, judging of his views from his speech and from the Report of the Royal Commission, the Governors were naturally apprehensive that the views which had been so fully expressed would be carried out. He should rejoice to hear from his noble Friend that that apprehension was groundless, but he wished it to be understood that while the Governors had been perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the noble Earl (the President of the Council) and the Vice President, their feelings had sustained a shock from the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) to which he had referred. He trusted that his noble Friend would take the present opportunity of explaining his views on this subject, and, if possible, of showing that he (the Duke of Cambridge) and the Governors of Christ's Hospital were mistaken in the conclusions they had drawn from his speech.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that before addressing the House in answer to the questions which had just been put, he desired to express his deep regret at the

  1871
  sudden death of the distinguished Member of the House (Lord Taunton) who presided over the Schools Inquiry Commission. Other noble Lords could better speak of the eminent qualities which distinguished him when filling high offices in the State; but having served continuously under him for three years—during which period he himself did not miss a single meeting—while his lamented Friend, at his advanced age, did not miss more than two—and those only on occasions when other important public duties prevented his attendance—he ventured to say that every member of the Commission was strongly impressed, not only with the noble Lord's intellectual qualities, but with his whole character, which induced a feeling of deep personal attachment to him. With regard to his (Lord Lyttelton's) intended appointment as Chief Commissioner, he was bound to say that there was much force in the remarks of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) and of the illustrious Duke on the cross-Benches, who had given such assiduous and valuable attention to the affairs of Christ's Hospital. He felt the force of the objections to his appointment owing to his connection with the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. That Commission was called upon to deal specially with the case of eight or nine large and eminent foundations—of which Christ's Hospital was by far the most remarkable—and in their Report, founded on an investigation of three years, they recommended sweeping changes. He was not aware what had since been done by the Governors; but he had not the least belief that they intended going nearly so far as the Commissioners proposed. He still felt that being himself committed, not only to certain great principles, but to their application to certain great institutions, the managers of them had a fair ground for apprehension and objection with regard to his appointment. He could not pretend to say that he had changed his opinions on those subjects, or that, as at present advised, he should not endeavour to give effect to them. As to the speech, however which had been quoted, he had said nothing new on the subject of Christ's Hospital or any other institution. The discussion in question was on the general subject of the degree of weight to be given to founders' wills long after their death; and he (Lord Lyttelton) could
  1872
  not go quite so far on that subject as Mr. Hobhouse, a distinguished Chancery barrister, who had not felt himself precluded by his intended appointment on the Commission from giving expression to his views. He was not aware, however, that anything was said that went beyond the views laid down in the Report of the Commissioners. The Bill, it should be remembered, though its intention was to deal freely with these institutions, indicated no particular point of detail. At first, he (Lord Lyttelton) refused the appointment, feeling that the managers of schools, and of these large endowments in particular, had a right to urge that Commissioners should not be appointed committed to a foregone conclusion, but that they should come entirely free to the subject. The Government, however, took a different view, and he did not think it was for him to press the objection. He was not committed to any particular step with regard to any school or to any point in the Report, and he should undertake the office with as little bias as possible, and should be willing to hear and consider any representations which might be made on any matter. The powers of the Commissioners were by no means absolute, for these institutions had the right of initiative, and no scheme to which either House of Parliament objected could take effect; besides which the Commissioners' schemes would have to be approved by the Committee of Council before they could be submitted to Parliament.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that he would confine his remarks to the case of Christ's Hospital. He was very glad to hear from the illustrious Duke that the Governors of that institution—in which he had taken so great an interest, had been satisfied up to a certain time with the arrangements which had been made with respect to this measure when passing through the House of Commons. This was no more than he should have expected; for, in March last, a deputation of the Governors, accompanied by the illustrious Duke, waited upon him and his right hon. Friend the Vice President, and asked that they might have the same power of initiative in reference to their school as had been given to the seven public schools which were dealt with by the Act of last Session; and, having given consideration to the argument then adduced, it had been arranged to grant all—indeed, more

  1873
  than all—that was asked, for the Governors of Christ's Hospital would have an initiative of a larger and more extensive kind than that which was given by the Public Schools Act. He had heard of the alarm created in the minds of the Governors of Christ's Hospital by the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton). His noble Friend, however, on that occasion did no more than express his general adherence to the principles of the Commissioners who had reported upon this matter; but he never intended to pledge himself in any reference to any particular institution.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobserved that what he referred to was, that the Commissioners, in their Report, had expressed the opinion that Christ's Hospital School should be filled by competition, and that the government should be re-organized. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had assented to that Report, and he would be one of the future School Commissioners. It was for this reason that his speech at the Society of Arts had excited alarm.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he could not for a moment suppose that his noble Friend would have accepted his appointment of Chief Commissioner unless he had felt himself perfectly free; and further, he would be distinctly and definitely bound to enter into the case of every individual institution. This he must do, without any prejudice or foregone conclusion whatever, and decide upon the merits of the representations made. The noble Duke had said that this Bill virtually gave the Commissioners power to deal as they liked with Christ's Hospital; but, in truth, it did nothing of the kind. What it did was this. It gave to the Governors of Christ's Hospital the period of one year—a longer period than was given by the Act of last Session—to prepare their own scheme, which would be submitted to the Commissioners. This the Commissioners were bound to consider; and, if they disapproved it, they would have to draw up an alternative scheme, and communicate it to the Governing Body, who would then have three months to prepare a second alternative scheme. The Committee of Council would then consider both these schemes, and would submit a scheme to Parliament, an objection to it by either House of Parliament being fatal to it. There was no such provision in the Public Schools
  1874
  Act. His noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) would enter on his duties with a mind perfectly free to consider the case of every charity and any proposal it might make; and he thought it was an advantage that one of the Commissioners should have previously inquired into the subject. The Government fully recognized the importance of Christ's Hospital, and its strong claims on public sympathy, and he believed the Bill would not, in the slightest degree, endanger its interests. He could not, therefore, consent to an Amendment excluding it from its operation.
  LORD OVERSTONEthought it not unreasonable that the suggestion that Christ's Hospital should be filled by competition should excite alarm, because the institution was, to a great extent, maintained by donations by which the individuals acquired or purchased right of presentation to the school. Many of the donations were given in early life, so as to secure a long succession of appointments; and, if the principle of competion were introduced, he should like to know what would become of the interests of such contributors.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he believed that the 13th clause would meet that part of the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Government seemed to desire the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) to perform a psychological dissection of himself of a remarkable character. They wished him to destroy all consciousness of former opinions, and, as though he had never had any, to exercise a discretion on matters with which those opinions were deeply concerned. Now, whatever power of self-involution or evolution the noble Lord might have, he would find it difficult to perform that operation, and he hoped he would not be offended by being compared to a man very distinguished in the history of this country, Mr. Beales. Mr. Beales having strong opinions in reference to political matters, and being also a Revising Barrister, was called upon to give decisions in matters in which those opinions were involved. But the Lord Chief Justice being of opinion that Mr. Beales was incompetent to act judicially and impartially in the decision, of those questions, removed him from his office of Revising Barrister. This somewhat applied to the noble Lord, and in a greater degree to Mr. Hobhouse—for he could not see what chance an unfortunate

  1875
  school would have that got into Mr. Hobhouse's clutches. Considering the known opinions of two out of the three Commissioners, it would be necessary to watch very jealously the large powers which the Bill proposed to intrust to them.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Saving of certain schools).
  EARL NELSONsaid, that the clause, as it stood, exempted the elementary schools receiving grants from, the Committee of Council on Education from the operation of the Bill. That he did not object to. But the clause went further, and exempted also the endowments of these elementary schools. He held that no endowments had failed more than these small endowments of elementary schools. He knew an instance, in his own neighbourhood, in the case of a school over which a master and mistress were placed who were quite unfit for their positions. He was unable to secure the assent of a majority of the Governors to the removal of these persons; from an idea that the endowment was sufficient nobody but himself subscribed to the school. Ultimately, under the threat of appointing another master and mistress to assist them, they withdrew on a pension, and as soon as a better class of education was attempted large subscriptions were given, and Government Grants obtained, and a good school for both sexes established. He wished to see a connection established between the elementary schools and the higher schools, and he thought that if the endowments of these elementary schools could be appropriated to scholarships in middle-class schools, they would be the means of enabling a clever boy of the labouring class, at all events, to rise out of his class, and perhaps ultimately to go to a University. A ladder had been referred to by Mr. Forster, but it was essential that the lowest step of the ladder should be secured.
  Amendment moved, lines 14 and 15, to leave out ("or to the endowment thereof.")—(The Earl Nelson).
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would support the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHremarked that at present the amount of the endowment was often deducted from the
  1876
  Parliamentary Grant. If this was abandoned he should not object to the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSpointed out the unfairness of bringing within the Bill a class of schools which had no notice, and as to which Parliament possessed no information.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clauses 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 12 (Schemes to extend benefit to girls).
  LORD LYTTELTONproposed an Amendment for the purpose of extending more fully to girls the benefit of certain endowments. So far as the two sexes were concerned there was no reason why endowment should not apply to both, and that it should be dealt out as fully to one as the other.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 12, and in lieu thereof insert the following clause:—
  "In framing schemes under this Act, provision shall be made for extending to girls the benefit of endowments on equal terms with boys, so far as the circumstances of the case shall admit."—(The Lord Lyttelton.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he preferred the clause as it stood. It was not desirable to unnecessarily tie up the hands of the Commissioners.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Saving of interest of foundationer, master, governing body, &c).
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought that due respect has scarcely been paid to vested interests. It was not, for instance, fair to say to the Governors of Christ's Hospital that their privileges should be taken from them on the plea that they had in times past received more than the value of their money.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he could not consent to regard the Governors of these institutions as possessing the same kind of vested interest in the schools that the shareholders in a company did in their property. Any representations, however, made with reference to any particular case would receive the attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEagreed with what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) with reference to Christ's Hospital. The value of the presentations consisted in the privilege which the holder exercised, and not in their money value.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Saving for modern endowments, cathedral schools, &c.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdesired to restrict the area over which the destructive action of his noble Friend was to range. Settlements were daily made which extended over the fifty years provided in this clause; and he believed the action of benevolent founders would be seriously discouraged if it were understood that their bequests might be diverted from the objects for which they were made within fifty years of their death.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("less than fifty years before the commencement of this Act.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the proposed Amendment would seriously impair the working of the Bill. He believed that in many instances benevolent persons who had witnessed the evil results of a too strict adherence to the intentions of testators would be deterred from leaving their money for benevolent purposes if they knew that under no circumstances whatever could the mode of employing the money be altered for at least a century. Fifty years was the period fixed in the Oxford University Act, and no complaint had been made against the working of that Act. The effect of the Amendment would be not only to exclude from the operation of this Bill all the schools founded between fifty and 100 years ago, but to withdraw from the more ancient institutions all those endowments which had been made during these fifty years. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) in his desire to maintain the inviolability of the rights of founders had, he feared, overlooked the importance of making their foundations useful for the purposes of education in the present day. A bad, lazily, and ill-conducted endowed school was, not only an evil in itself, but too frequently had the effect of preventing the foundation of an efficient private school in the neighbourhood.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the arguments of the noble Earl the Lord President, based upon the importance of interfering in cases where endowed schools were ill-conducted, was just as applicable in cases where the schools had been founded within the last fifty years as it was in the case of schools founded at an earlier period. It should be remembered, too, that if founders desired that their intentions should be subjected to Parliamentary inquiry or action, nothing could be easier than that they should state the wish distinctly in the bequest. He quite concurred in the soundness of the principle of laying down certain rules by which founders might know for certain how long their intentions would be respected; but, in ex post facto legislation of the kind they were now adopting, they ought to exercise great care and to offer no interference without grave and sufficient cause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would remind the Committee that in the course of fifty years two generations in the way of education passed away, and those connected with the management of these schools rarely kept pace with the times. It was, for instance, fifty years since he left a public school, and until within the last five years the course of management had remained unaltered. A change, however, was then made against the wish of the master; but the advantage was so great and so generally recognized that the number of scholars increased immediately from 200 to 300, and the master himself was one of the earliest converts to the importance of the change that had been effected.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that it was, no doubt, of the utmost importance that endowments, by being made useful, should be relieved from discredit; but it was also of great importance that care should be taken that the confidence of founders should not be shaken by undue interference with their wishes and intentions. Some distinction ought, in his opinion, to be drawn between cases where money had been given purely for educational purposes and where money had been given for purposes which were mixed.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he could testify, from personal knowledge, that no complaint had been made against the Oxford University Act on account of the time having been fixed at fifty in-

  1879
  stead of 100 years. He should, therefore, support the clause as it stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and substitute another, confining the operation of the Bill to endowments founded previously to the year 1800.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("less than fifty years before the commencement of this Act") and insert ("since the year 1800 ")—(The Marquess of Salisbury): On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Contents 29: Majority 13.

  CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  London, Bp.

  York, Archp.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Devonshire, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  De Grey, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Monson, L.

  Granville, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough) [Teller.]

  Kimberley, E.

  Lichfield, E.

  Seaton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Suffield, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Sydney, V.

  Vernon, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Ely, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Exeter, M.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller]

  Cairns, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Denman, L.

  Devon, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Kellie, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Tredegar, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Religious education in day schools).
  THE EARL OF BEAUCHAMP moved to omit the words "on a religious subject," with the purpose of giving the parent the power to object to his child receiving religious instruction at any time.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, it would be impossible to carry on a school satisfactorily if such a power of minute interference were placed in the hands of the parents.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON moved to insert in line 39 the words, "on the ground of his dissent from the authorized religious teaching of such school." He objected to the clause as it stood, because the former part of it maintained unduly the liberty given to parents in reference to removing children from religious teaching, and the latter part incidentally limited very much the liberty of teachers. Anyone who had been connected with a school would know that the withdrawing of children for any object whatever was a great evil in reference to the management of the school. Further, if this clause stood in its present form, an idle boy, with a careless father or a too indulgent mother, might raise objections to attendance on religious lessons, for the simple reason that he did not wish to attend any lessons of any kind.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he regarded the wording of the clause as a very fair compromise of a very difficult question, and trusted, therefore, that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthen moved to leave out the latter section of the clause, which gave power to the parents in cases where the master shall "teach persistently any particular religious doctrine disapproved of by the parent," to make a complaint in writing to the Governing Body, and said that if the power were given as proposed in the Bill, it would cause serious annoyance to teachers.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought that the clause would have the effect of carrying the Conscience Clause to an unheard-of extent, and for his

  1881
  part he did not see how the provisions could be carried out, unless parents had the right to be present at all lessons. If the children themselves were to raise objections, many of them would be sure to be of a very erroneous character. In his opinion the matter had better be left upon the footing of the Conscience Clause, that any child might be withdrawn during the hours of religious instruction.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that the clause as it stood would be extremely offensive and disagreeable to some of the best schoolmasters in the country.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he could not consent to this portion of the clause being struck out. The subject had been very carefully discussed before it had been included in the Bill. The object was to make those great schools, where there was only one in a district, as available as possible for the benefit of all the inhabitants. It was right that the parent, if he showed to the Governing Body that his objection was reasonable, should have power to object to any persistent attempt on the part of the master to introduce into the secular lessons religious doctrines repugnant to the religious opinion of such parent. He could not consent to the omission of the section.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid, they must take care they were not introducing, by means of this clause, a religious difficulty where none existed. There was a strong feeling in the country in favour of religious teaching. The parents of children ought, no doubt, to have a right to object to the special doctrinal lessons. The provisions of the clause would, however, seriously interfere with the freedom of schoolmasters, who might accidentally render themselves liable to be brought before the Governing Body. These schoolmasters were frequently very sensitive men, and it was scarcely fair to hold this provision over them in terrorem.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the clause was founded on the Report of the Royal Commissioners, and he was prepared to support it; but he did not attach much importance to the clause. The Bill would work as well without as with the clause.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, there ought to be some provision against a sort of illicit teaching of the worst kind, and he, for one, could not tolerate that sort of proselytizing. He thought the word "persistently" was not strong enough. "Religious doctrine disapproved of by the parents" were loose words, and as it was desirable that honest men should be guarded as much as possible, he would move the insertion of the words "systematically and persistently teach," and remit him back as to what he disapproved to the original protest under which he claimed exemption.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendments.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17, and 18, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Schools excepted from provisions as to religion).
  THE BISHOP OF ELY THE BISHOP OF ELY moved an Amendment, exempting from the operation of the Bill, with respect to religious teaching—
  "Any school 'or educational endowment which, on the principles laid down by recent decisions in the courts of Equity, would appear from the nature of its foundation deeds and the time at which it was founded to be a school or educational endowment for the teaching of scholars in the principles of any particular church, sect, or denomination."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD LYTTELTON LORD LYTTELTON moved the omission of the parenthesis in the clause relating to the attendance of day scholars at the offering of prayer, and at the time of religious instruction.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought it would be of great advantage to the Church herself if some of these cathedral schools should be made more generally available for the benefit of the children of the inhabitants.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYgave notice that he should revive the question on a future occasion.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Transfer of jurisdiction of Visitors).
  THE BISHOP OF ELYproposed, in page 7, line 32, after ("relates,") to insert—
  ("Except in the cases of cathedral and other schools, or educational endowments mentioned in Clause 19, where the visitor or visitors may have been appointed by the original foundation deed, with special reference to the religious character of the schools or endowments.")
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would accept the Amendment if confined to cathedral schools.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYassented.
  Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clauses 21 to 29, inclusive,agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 30 (Application to education of non-educational charities).
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that this clause provided for the application of "doles in money or kind" and other gifts to educational purposes. He moved to leave out "with the consent of the Governing Body," those doles being in most cases mischievous and demoralizing.
  EARL DE LA WARR, as a member of a Governing Body, supported the Amendment on the ground of the mischievous character of the doles.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobjected to the Amendment. He had no doubt that where the charity was mischievous it would be easy to obtain the consent of the Governing Body.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had long ago formed the opinion that, though there were many disreputable things in this Bill, there was only one thoroughly wicked clause, and that was the present one. It was 'proposed to take away from poor men certain doles which had been left to them. It was said that such doles were demoralizing—that they discouraged men from working. Was it demoralizing that the poor should live without excess of work? The poor man might retort that it was demoralizing to noble Lords to have such an income that it was not required that they should work at all. He did not know anything more likely to create dissatisfaction than the proposal to divert such money as this to other purposes. The feeling seemed to pervade modern society that the poor should be left always to work, and that it was a misfortune to have anything that would re-
  1884
  lieve them from it. If power were given to the Commissioners, without obtaining the consent of anybody, to sweep away all these charities, such power would be an enormous one. No doubt education was a good thing, but eating was a better, and they ought not to devote these funds to education, which would no doubt be valuable to full men, but a mockery to those who were empty.
  THE EARL OF ROMNEYalso opposed the Amendment. He maintained that there were cases in which those charities did good.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that to leave this clause as it stood would be simply to allow a scandal and disgrace to continue.
  THE EARL of AIRLIEsupported the Amendment. These charities were, for the most part, great abuses, and did nothing but mischief. He should like to propose to strike out the words "Governing Body" and insert in their place "Charity Commissioners."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that though agreeing with what had been stated as to the abuses of these charities, yet, as the clause was the result of a compromise, he must oppose the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that many poor people thought they had a chartered right in the charities, and therefore they ought to be tenderly dealt with.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 31 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Exception as to schemes for endowments under £100).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH moved in page 15, line 20, to leave out from "endowment" to "the" in line 26, his object being to secure uniformity of action under the Bill by having the schemes affecting even the small charities submitted to the consideration of Parliament. There were about 200 small endowments, averaging £15 a year, and bringing in a total income of £3,000, and he thought it objectionable that so large a sum should be disposed of by the Commissioners and the Vice President of the Committee of Council without requiring the sanction of Parliament.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, if the opinion of the House was in favour of the Amendment he should not oppose it.
  Amendment agreed to,
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 43 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Bishop of London a new clause was added (School chapels appropriated for religious worship free from parochial jurisdiction).
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.