Lords Sitting of 24 April 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Charters (Colleges)* (73); Anatomy Act (1832) Amendment* (74).
Second Reading—Bankruptcy Disqualification (65); Promissory Oaths (64).
Referred to Select Committee—Incorporation of Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland* (41); Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation* (42).
Royal Assent—Poor Law (Loans) [34 Vict. c. 11]; Mutiny [34 Vict. c. 9]; Marine Mutiny [34 Vict. c. 10].

IRELAND—WESTMEATH, &c. (UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS.)

  NOTICE OF BILL.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity, before the Public Business of the House commences, of stating that it is my intention on behalf of the Government to present on Thursday next a Bill founded upon the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons on the state of Westmeath. The Bill will have for its object the repression, within certain local limits, of the crimes and outrages which, as shown by the evidence, are perpetrated by secret societies. I observe that a noble Friend of mine (the Marquess of Clanricarde) has given notice that he will move to-morrow for the communication to this House of the Report of the Committee of the other House. As, however, my noble Friend who leads the Government in this House (Earl Granville) has already stated that there is no objection to those Papers being communicated, and as the House will no doubt wish to have them as soon as possible, I hope that, without any discourtesy to the noble Marquess, I may to-night move for the Papers. I propose, if agreeable to your Lordships, to fix an early day after Thursday for the second reading of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: May I ask the noble Earl when the Papers relating to the Westmeath Committee will be printed and in the hands of noble Lords? We ought to have them as soon as possible, before being asked to discuss a measure founded on them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was because they ought to be presented as soon as possible, and in order to enable their Lordships to discuss the measure founded on them, that he had ventured to anticipate the Motion of the noble Marquess for their production. He would at once move that a Message be sent to the House of Commons, requesting them to communicate the evidence taken before the Westmeath Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be sorry to evince the slightest unwillingness to legislate in this matter; but I hope it will not become a precedent. I protest against the principle that one House should do the inquiry and that another should do legislation. It would have been more convenient, had the Government intended that this House should initiate legislation on the subject, they should have entrusted us with the inquiry. As a matter of convenience I will offer no objection to this Motion; but I hope it will not be made a precedent.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I hope it will be a precedent for the noble Marquess not to be always lecturing the Government for not initiating measures in this House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Message to the Commons for the Report of and Evidence taken before the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the state of Westmeath and certain parts adjoining of Meath and King's County, the nature, extent, and effect of a certain unlawful combination and confederacy existing therein, and the best means of suppressing the same.

EMANUEL CHARITY, WESTMINSTER— THE ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS.— OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEappealed to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) who had given Notice "To draw attention to the proposals of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in respect to the Emanuel Charity" with reference to the opportuneness of the discussion
1550
which he proposed to raise on this subject. Under the Endowed Schools Act ample care was taken that nothing should be done in altering the constitution of such charities without full inquiry and without due consideration for the interests of all parties concerned. The Commissioners under that Act had prepared a scheme with respect to Emanuel Hospital, which had been laid before the Committee of Council for Education for approval; but, of the two months allowed to the trustees to appeal, six weeks were still unexpired. At the expiration of that term, in the event of there being no appeal or of its being rejected, the scheme would be submitted to Parliament, and unless within 40 days either House voted an Address against it it would become valid. At present the scheme was not before their Lordships; and although the Privy Council in case of an appeal would only have to decide legal questions, it would be inconvenient for his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax), who was acting for the President of the Council, to have to discuss now a matter which might come before him hereafter judicially.
LORD CAIRNSremarked that the action of the Privy Council Committee was not confined to legal questions, but extended to matters of discretion, expediency, and policy. This raised a further difficulty as regarded a discussion at this moment, for the arguments on the general question might afterwards have to be considered by the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdeclined to postpone the question. Before the new scheme for Emanuel Hospital had been decided upon by the Privy Council he had placed his Notice of Motion on the Paper in order to discuss it on the earliest opportunity open to him; but the Government had taken advantage of the intervening Easter Recess, and of the impossibility of discussing the matter, to approve the scheme, notwithstanding his Notice inviting discussion upon it. He did not know whether this was considered consistent with the courtesy due from the Executive Government to this House; but, at all events, it absolved him from the necessity of observing any extravagant courtesy towards the Executive Government on the subject. As the Government had chosen to take advantage of the Recess to withdraw the matter from discussion,

1551
their Lordships had a right to fall back on their general right to review the actions of the Executive, and to inquire whether the Government had acted wisely or foolishly in approving of the principles contained in this scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. If this had merely been an isolated case he might have consented to wait until the scheme was laid upon the Table in ordinary course; but it was not an isolated case—it was the first and most capital instance of the application of a pernicious principle of public policy applied not to one, but to numerous schools in this country, and which the Commissioners were endeavouring to carry out systematically, and it was necessary that attention should be drawn to it in order to obtain an expression of feeling from those interested. It was not the treatment of a particular school, but the inauguration of a principle of public policy to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention. When the Endowed Schools Act was passed it was believed that it would remedy, in the most effective form, sundry abuses discovered by the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into Endowed Schools. No doubt these Commissioners, though they were too ready to evoke and listen to all the village gossip they could, detected some real abuses; and it was to remedy these that the Endowed Schools Act was passed. He would show their Lordships what were the expectations held out by the Government as to the course which the Endowed Schools Commissioners would take. A deputation of the trustees of the Bristol charities had an interview with Mr. Forster on the subject. Mr. Forster stated that the Bill was introduced to remedy defects which had been found to exist, and that it was not intended to interfere with good schools, but only with misapplied, obsolete, or ill-administered foundation, and that the Bristol school had nothing to fear. But he (the Marquess of Salisbury) was prepared to show that schools against which not a word could be urged had been interfered with. The Commissioners, indeed, seemed to imagine that instead of remedying what was corrupt or obsolete their duty was to act like a philanthrophic gentleman, who having just come into an enormous fortune, thought he was at liberty to dispose of it as he pleased for
1552
the education of the country; and they accordingly acted in entire independence of the will of Parliament, and in disregard and contempt for the wills of founders and the interest of the classes for whose benefit the foundations were intended. The case of the Emanuel School was this—In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Lady Ann Dacre, widow of Lord Dacre, and sister of Elizabeth's Minister, Lord Buckhurst, founded this Hospital; and for its maintenance purchased the site on which the Hospital now stood, in Great James Street, Westminster, and endowed it with the manor of Brandesburton, in Yorkshire. The object of the foundation, as expressed by the Foundress, was "for the relief of aged people, and the bringing up of children in virtue, and good and laudable arts, in the same Hospital, whereby they might the better live in time to come by their honest labour," and after the death of Lady Dacre, the charity received a charter of incorporation, by which, after the death of the Lady Dacre's executors, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London were declared Governors of the Hospital. The last executor died in 1623; since which time the interests of the foundation, both as regards its material interests, and its character of a religious and charitable institution, had been assiduously cared for by the City authorities. If the Governing Body was corrupt, if it had shown itself inefficient, if it had committed any great errors, if its constitution was such that it could not properly perform its duties, there might have been some reason for interference on the part of the Commissioners. But they were restrained by no such considerations. In more than one instance they had destroyed Governing Bodies against whom no accusation had been made, and whose administration was unimpeachable, merely because they did not happen to fall within a preconceived theory. A more flagrant instance of this could not be imagined than that of Emanuel School under the management of the Corporation of London. The Corporation was an elective body; its actions were constantly subjected to public view; everything that it did was the subject of public comment; and it was impossible that anything of a corrupt, or even of a neglectful character, could be adopted, checked as their proceedings were by constant

1553
publicity. Again, they were a body essentially accustomed to governing; they had been for centuries accustomed to the management of great estates; they had large administrative traditions, and employed officers of great character and experience. Of all public bodies it was the most exposed to public and Parliamentary control. Its reform, though often suggested, had never yet been found advisable, but might be undertaken at any time. Yet, in spite of these eminent qualifications, the Endowed Schools Commissioners proposed to supersede them. And what did they propose to substitute for them? They proposed to substitute a new body, renewed by the most objectionable of all forms, that of self-election or "co-optation"—a principle strongly condemned by the Commissioners of Inquiry, as having the effect, in the course of time, of rendering predominant and stereotyping, as it were, personal influences. It was a close corporation. The public were effectually excluded from their deliberations, and there was no practical responsibility. The Commissioners had directed that there should be 20 governors, three of whom were to be so ex officio—namely, the Dean of Westminster, and the two Members for Westminster, who had plenty of other duties, and, like the ex officio Poor Law Guardians, were not likely to take much part in the management; seven governors to be named by various persons or bodies, of whom three only were to be nominated by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, termed co-optative governors; and ten named in the scheme, who were to be renewed on vacancies by election by the whole body. The practical result would be that the ten nominated by the Commissioners would be the majority of the Board trust. Those named in the scheme were no doubt at present resident in Westminster; but not being adscripti glebæ might reside anywhere else to-morrow. Thus the Commissioners would dethrone a body, the efficiency of which no one could doubt, and appoint another whose efficiency was very doubtful. He thought this was a matter which deserved the very grave consideration of their Lordships. The Commissioners had, with similar arbitrary power, displaced the Governing Body of the Graycoat Charity, and had nominated five ladies, of whose efficiency, seeing that they had
1554
hitherto had no opportunity of displaying their ability, the Commissioners must have judged by intuition. The real gravamen of the case could not be better stated than in the following resolution which was adopted at a recent meeting at the Mansion House:—
"That the threatened confiscation of the property of Emanuel Hospital, and the extinction of that and other endowed school charities, upon the principle announced by the Endowed School Commissioners, 'that there shall be no gratuitous education except as the reward of merit,' is a measure which this meeting emphatically condemns, not only as a violation of the rights of property, but as tending to obstruct the working of the great scheme of national education, and is, in the opinion of this meeting, at once untenable and pernicious."
The assertion of the Commissioners, that "there shall be no gratuitous education except as the reward of merit," was a kind of jargon too much in use at the present day. The property was left for the benefit of the poor; but the Endowed School Commissioners had determined that it should not be given for the benefit of the poor, but to those who succeeded in a competitive examination between the ages of 7 and 13. Now, a competitive examination implied leisure and instruction, and leisure was much more likely to be possessed by the rich than by the poor. Applied to boys between 12 and 13—contrary to the recommendations of the Inquiry Commissioners—competitive examinations would be the greatest of shams, signifying that those who had money would succeed, and those who had not would fail. A working man, whose son did not gain an exhibition, would not be able to pay £26 a-year, and as the funds, which were likely to increase in value, were to be applied to rewarding the masters and raising the standard of education, the higher middle class, with their command of money and leisure, would doubtless do their best to get hold of the exhibitions, so that what was bequeathed for the poor would be absorbed by the richer class. The funds provided by Lady Dacre were derived from estates which had already increased forty-fold in value, and which were likely to increase still further, and there would in all probability be a considerable pressure on the part of the higher middle class to get access to these schools. They would apply their leisure to this purpose, and the consequence would be that all the

1555
money left by Lady Dacre for the benefit of the poorer classes of the community would be absorbed by persons of higher standing. In thus depriving the City of London of the administration of a Charity, which they had administered well for 300 years—for it is a fact beyond dispute, that not one word of fault has been found by any Commissioners, body, or person, with the administration of their stewardship of this foundation—they are acting in direct defiance of the Report of their own Inquiry Commissioners. These Gentlemen say—
"Some schools are not under the government of special boards of their own, but under that of municipal corporations, city companies, or colleges at the Universities. Among these the municipal corporations, as we have seen, are the best administrators."
Let him now call their Lordships' attention to what the City of London had actually done in their administration of their trust. Lady Dacre's executors had leased the Brandesburton Estates for 100 years at a rental of £100, by which fund, under the charter 20 poor people were maintained, and 20 poor children educated. It was not until 1732 that by the increase in the rents the Corporation found themselves enabled to establish a separate and distinct school for the children. In 1794, the rents had so much increased that the Corporation found themselves in a position to give a great extension to the charitable intentions of the Foundress. They therefore obtained an Act of Parliament, which authorized them to increase the number of children to be educated according to the resources of the Charity; and under this power there were at present 64 children clothed, fed, and educated within the Hospital—half boys and half girls—of whom 32 were taken from Westminster, 3 from Chelsea, 3 from Hayes, 20 from the City of London, and 6 from Brandesburton. That the Corporation were not insensible to the call for education was shown by the fact that whereas the foundation seemed to be equally apportioned to the alms people and the children, now two-thirds of the income was spent upon education and one-third upon the alms people. In another respect they were in advance of the times, for they had long seen the advantages of female education, and the Court of Aldermen were among the few—the very few—trustees of schools in this country who have not forgotten the
1556
girls, for in the administration of their fund they have cared equally for both sexes. There was another point which he wished to impress on their Lordships. The Corporation of London had been exceedingly good landlords at Brandesburton, where the estates were situated. They had long since felt it their duty to provide for the primary education of the parish; and flourishing schools for boys, girls, and infants, accommodating altogether 200, have been built, solely at the expense of the Hospital, and maintained principally from its resources. The condition of the tenants and labourers on the estates have been improved, good cottages built, and though the rental had increased from £360 in 1742 to £4,000 at the present day, the tenantry were prosperous and contented. And yet the whole charge of administering the funds of the trust was—exclusive of the land agent—£50 a-year for the salary of a clerk. Yet, in spite of the immense improvement of the value of the estates and the probability of further increase, the Commissioners had inserted a clause providing that the lands might be sold, and all prospect of any future increase of the funds of the Charity might be thus paralyzed. But this was not an isolated case. The determination expressed by the Commissioners was to be applied to all schools whatever. The declaration that "there shall be no gratuitous education, except as the reward of merit," would spread a sort of plague over many parts of the country, and he had received complaints from Bristol, Leicester, and several other places, that this principle was to be applied to them, and that various bodies who had hitherto governed without reproach were to be superseded. He hoped that the noble Lord who represented the Commissioners would give some explanation of the principle on which they were acting—for he considered the statement in their circular that—
"There was no principle more objectionable than to give gratuitous education except as the reward of merit, and that this was the principle uniformly adopted by the most eminent persons connected with the cause of education,"
to be absolutely without any foundation in fact. On the contrary, the correspondence and evidence published by the Commissioners showed that many of the most eminent educationalists of the day were opposed to it. The Dean

1557
of Norwich stated that he regarded gratuitous education given to some scholars as an immense boon—Professor Maurice preferred the exclusion of paying pupils to the conversion of funds for the education of a number of boys into prizes to stimulate the ambition of a few; and the Bishop of St. David's said that the only ground on which it seemed to him expedient or right to take away the privilege of free education was that it was generally injurious to the school, or impaired the quality of the education given. Sir J. Kaye Shuttleworth gave strong evidence in favour of gratuitous education, and stated that the utmost jealousy ought to be exercised in the matter, and that endowments should not be withdrawn from the poor and the apathetic. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) considered that the Commissioners had stated their case in a most reckless way, seeing that it was in the face of the contrary testimony of the eminent men whose names he had mentioned. He wished to urge one other argument in support of his statement, and that was, that by the barrier of competitive examination, the Commissioners were taking away the inheritance of the poor. It was the peculiar duty of their Lordships to guard the rights of property, and they always denounced confiscation as the most dangerous principle that could be introduced into legislation. There was no property which ought to be held more sacred than that of those who were unable to help themselves, and there could not be a more dangerous and more wicked confiscation than the confiscation of the property and inheritance of the poor.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXregretted that the noble Marquess had not adopted his noble Friend's suggestion, as an appeal might in this case be made to the Privy Council on grounds wider than merely legal ones, and it was inconvenient, to say the least of it, that members of that body should discuss in the House questions which they might have afterwards to decide in a judicial capacity. The principle on which the Commissioners were acting, in dealing with Governing Bodies and founders' wills, was not, as the noble Marquess seemed to think, a principle which they had laid down for themselves, it was the principle of the Act of 1869, which was passed unanimously by both Houses, and if these arrangements were not to be interfered
1558
with the Act would be a dead letter, and the labour of the Inquiry Commissioners would be utterly useless. In the discussion on the measure it was distinctly avowed that the main object was to provide for the education of the middle class, with a fair and full opportunity to people of a lower position to avail themselves of such education. Without troubling their Lordships with many quotations in proof of this, he would only refer to the speech of a noble Earl (Earl Nelson), who usually sat opposite, and who supported the Bill, as "likely to give an improved education to the children of the middle classes, and at the same time to admit a portion of the children of the working classes to its benefits." The Act was designed, indeed, to render available, for the education mainly of the middle class, funds originally left for them, and to fill up the existing chasm between primary schools and the public schools and Universities, and it was not unreasonable to suppose that the founders, if now alive, would wish the endowments to be adapted to the requirements and necessities of the present age. In this case, by removing the government of Emanuel Hospital from the Corporation of London, the will of the Foundress was not set aside, for the Corporation of London were intrusted with the management, not by the will of the Foundress, but by an Act of Queen Elizabeth, and as regarded the almshouses the Governing Body were to remain intact. With regard to means of education the district was amply provided for, there being, of the higher class, Westminster school, while under the recent Act primary education would be adequately furnished in the district. There were also ample means for providing such education as was contemplated under the Endowed Schools Act. There were in the district no less than six endowed schools—the Bluecoat, which, being well managed, it was not proposed to interfere with; the Graycoat, which it was intended to devote altogether to the education of girls, and that was the reason for appointing some ladies amongst the governors. There were, besides these two, the Greencoat School, Emanuel Hospital, Palmer's Hospital, and Emery Hill's Hospital. These last four it was proposed to consolidate. The Governing Body of Emanuel Hospital was the Corporation of London, and the three other foundations had separate

1559
bodies of trustees. A single Governing Body would obviously be more efficient and economical than four bodies. It was proposed to constitute a single Governing Body partly of persons either sitting ex officio or named by those who necessarily took an interest in education in Westminster, 3 named by the Corporation of London, and 10 gentlemen named in the Bill. Vacancies in the latter body were to be filled up by co-optation. The 10 nominated trustees were all at present trustees of one or other of the charities, and they had been selected after communication with the existing Governing Bodies. He did not dispute that the Corporation of London were admirable landlords; but it was another question whether they were as well qualified to manage schools, and it should be remembered that the Inquiry Commissioners came to the conclusion "that schools required Boards of their own, and could not be so well managed by bodies associated for some other purpose." The noble Marquess had dwelt at great length on the hardship of putting an end to the gratuitous education and maintenance of a number of poor children, and it had been one of the main topics made use of in the agitation which had been got up against the scheme, that it was benefiting a richer class by depriving the poor of what was called their patrimony. The question of the best mode of applying funds to the greatest advantage in the education of the poor had been discussed at great length by the Commissioners of Inquiry, and nothing could be stronger than the opinion expressed by them as to the mischief produced by indiscriminate gratuitous education. They said—
"Indiscriminate gratuitous instruction, on which at present a very large proportion of the income of endowment is wasted, has been demonstrated to be as invariably mischievous as indiscriminate almsgiving, and a desire to retain the one must be ascribed to the same inconsiderate benevolence as that which keeps up the other. On this point there is an extraordinary concurrence in the opinions expressed by the weightiest authorities. Mr. Adderley, Dr. Angus, Professor Bernard, Canon Blakesley, Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, the Dean of Salisbury, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Peterborough, Mr. Lake, Sir J. G. Shaw Lefevre, Rev. J. Martineau, Mr. Miall, Mr. J. Stuart Mill, Mr. Morley, Lord Redesdale, all with more or less force agree in the belief that to give indiscriminate gratuitous education is an unwise use of endowments. Several of these gentlemen condemn it in the most decisive language; almost all would substitute some mode of selection by merit for the present system. With this judgment our Assistant
1560
Commissioners concur, and the facts which we have put together in our second chapter show with all the force of demonstration that no other conclusion is possible."
Again, the Commissioners said—
"It is rarely a good thing to relieve the parents entirely of the burden of maintaining their children; to aid them in bearing it is a real charity, to bear it for them is generally a blunder."
As to the endowments for feeding and clothing they said—
"There are not a few schools in which tolerably large endowments are spent on clothing or boarding a small number of boys. It is impossible not to see that in many of these cases a rather questionable benefit is bestowed on a few with funds that are very much wanted for the use of many. A boarding-school of 20 boys will sometimes be the result of an endowment of £800 a-year, an endowment that would maintain in great efficiency a school of several hundreds."
He must also call their Lordships' attention to the amount of the instruction given under the present system, and under that which it was proposed to substitute for it. How many children did their Lordships suppose were educated at these four schools? 147, of whom 92 were also maintained and clothed; while the revenue was £4,000 per annum. The proposed scheme gave two day schools for 300 boys in each, a boarding school for 150 boys, to be hereafter increased to 300—and, indeed, if the plan succeeded, a larger number than the 900 thus provided for might be attained. It was not true that under the new scheme the children were elected by competition. They were to be admitted in the order of application, if qualified; the test being an examination of a very ordinary description. There were to be exhibitions, which might be gained by boys entering from the primary schools in the parishes of St. Margaret's and St. John's, or children of parents resident in them, by competition, and by boys already in the school by talent and character combined. The boys attaining these exhibitions would be exempt from paying half or the whole of the tuition fees. Those totally exempt might amount to one-sixth, and those totally or partially exempt to one-third of the whole number of scholars. Exhibitions in the boarding school would entitle the holders to non-payment of tuition fees, and to be boarded free of expense. Boys might also obtain scholarships, which would enable them to continue their education at schools of a still

1561
higher class. One-third of the exhibitions were reserved for those who came from primary elementary schools in the two parishes, one-third for orphans, and one-third were free. Thus a boy from the primary schools might, by industry and talent, provide for his own education through all the schools of this foundation—through, perhaps, the great school of Westminster, and one of our Universities. In this manner children, unable to provide for themselves, would be educated upon grounds far more advantageous to themselves than the indiscriminate gratuitous education which the Corporation of London proposed to continue. In point of fact, however, it was not true that the children now educated in those schools were, generally speaking, the children of poor parents; and therefore the scheme did not take away the means of education from the poor, and transfer it to the richer classes. Mr. Fearon, the Assistant Commissioner who inquired into these Westminster schools, reported that there was a certain class of persons who could always make pretty sure of getting their children in—such as messengers in the House of Commons and House of Lords, or persons in the employ of the governors. A statement as to the parents of children now at the school, taken at random from the list, did not bear out the opinion that they were persons whose children it was a charity to educate gratuitously. In one case the father was a messenger in the House of Lords; in another a master printer; another kept a refreshment bar; in a third the father was a master hairdresser; in a fourth a master silversmith; another master in the City, police superintendent, working silversmith, and so on; and the parents of the children brought from Brandesburton were above the class of labourers. It was only, he might add, in his opinion, due to the Commissioners to say that the course they had taken was in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and he hoped their Lordships would not deem it necessary to interfere with their action under the Act of Parliament.
LORD BUCKHURSTsaid, that being hereditarily interested in this foundation, he desired to be permitted to refer for a few moments to the subject. The object of the Endowed Schools Act,
1562
which, on the whole, he regarded as a good measure, was declared in the Preamble to be to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners that various changes should be made in the government, management, and studies of endowed schools, and in the application of educational endowments, with the object of promoting their greater efficiency, and of carrying into effect the main design of the founders thereof, by putting a liberal education within the reach of children of all classes. There was, however, a great difference between the words of the Act and the maxim laid down by the Commissioners who were appointed to give effect to its provisions—that there should be no gratuitous education except as the reward of merit. How had that axiom been observed in the present case? The intention of the Act of 1869 clearly was to amend our educational charities, not to subvert them; to increase their efficiency, not to confiscate their property. The recourse to a competitive examination, however, would result in the virtual exclusion of the children of the poor from the advantages of the endowments in question; inasmuch as that intellectual merit which was meant by the Commissioners could only be acquired by previous preparation, which poor children would not be in a position to obtain. The express intention of the Foundress was on record—it was—
"The relief of aged people and bringing up of children in virtue and good and laudable arts, in the same Hospital, whereby they might the better live in time to come by their honest labour."
It was clearly meant, therefore, that an education should be provided at the Hospital for those poor children who could not educate themselves sufficiently to gain a livelihood. Now, interested as he was in the Charity, he had always rejoiced that it was under the management of the Corporation of London, who were so well fitted to administer its funds, and who had, he believed, always endeavoured to promote the objects for which it was set on foot to the best of their ability. In 1732, finding their income sufficient to extend the benefits intended by the Foundress, they had established a separate and distinct school for the education of the children; and in 1794, finding that their income continued to augment, they obtained an

1563
Act of Parliament by which they were authorized to extend the educational trust of the foundation in proportion to the increase of their means. From that time to the present the school had been an excellent one. He believed that the Corporation had carried out faithfully the spirit of the intentions of the Foundress. The school was never intended to come within the category of grammar schools—it was intended expressly for the education of the children of the poor, "so that they might better live in time to come by their honest labour." It seemed to him that the Commissioners were bound to respect, as far as possible, the intentions of the founders of charities with which they dealt, and to carry them out in the spirit if not in the letter. He thought that in the present instance that principle had been entirely neglected. One point more. The whole of this Charity was administered at an expense of only £50 per annum, and therefore all the funds were devoted to its benefit. Lastly, he wished to say that there had been no public inquiry into the institution—at all events, no fault had been found with it by any public body or Commissioners, and he believed he was not wrong in saying that the Corporation of London courted the fullest inquiry into their management of the estates and the way in which the funds had been administered, and that they naturally felt aggrieved at the manner in which they had been treated.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he desired, as one of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, to state that, on consideration of the very invidious duties the Commission would have to perform, it had been very wisely determined that they should not be directly responsible to Parliament. The schemes of the Commissioners were to be submitted to Government, who might, on deliberation, adopt them, after which they were out of the hands of the Commission, and the Government became responsible. When, therefore, the noble Marquess expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would not adopt this scheme he was under a mistake, for they had already sanctioned it. When the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) had said that there was no public inquiry, that was true only in a certain sense, for the Commissioners were to make only such inquiry as satisfied themselves of the facts and conditions
1564
of any foundation school, and thereon to frame a scheme; but they were not bound to base their action upon any formal public inquiry. It was a matter for their own discretion. The Corporation of London had circulated a very interesting document, which entered into a great many points as to which the Corporation complained of the course adopted by the Commissioners. He should be very much tempted to go through those statements paragraph by paragraph, only that it would take too much time. He would, for the present, content himself with saying that he hoped the Commissioners would be allowed by the Government to give a complete denial of those statements, for there was hardly a single paragraph in them but what conveyed great inaccuracies. The Commissioners had a specific authority to guide them—an authority which to them was without appeal—he meant the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, to which they were bound to give general effect. The Act, which he held in his hand, recited that Report, and said that the object recommended in it could not be attained without the authority of Parliament, and the Commissioners were bound to carry out that object in a certain way prescribed by the Act. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that it could not have been supposed that such sweeping effect would be given to the provisions of the Endowed Schools Act. But he would answer that by asking whether it was possible that there could be a stronger, more stringent, or more sweeping Act—or one more indicative of the sense of Parliament of the enormous evils with which the Commission would have to deal, and he would point especially to the 9th and 10th clauses. The noble Marquess said that the object of the Act was simply to deal with proved abuses. But, according to the 9th clause, the Commissioners were to have power to act in such a manner as to render any educational endowments most conducive—not to assist the poor, not to carry out the will of the founder—but to the education of boys and girls. And for that purpose even the power of consolidation was included. Then the next clause enabled them to do away with the control of any Governing Body, and establish a new one in its stead; and the steps they took to carry out the powers conferred

1565
upon them were subject only to the approval or disapproval of Parliament. He did not speak as impeaching any of the Governing Bodies; but the Commissioners were to look to what was most conducive to education. For himself, he did not believe that it would be possible, in dealing with these cases, to hold to the principle of adhering to the will of the founders; but the question of the will of the founders did not arise very much in this case, because there was no separate school until 1732, and none worth talking of until 1794. The Act said nothing about adhering to the will of the founders, but merely that the Commissioners should put education within the reach of all classes. The noble Marquess said that in the Report of the Inquiry Commissioners they stated that the municipal corporations had proved themselves the best administrators. But that was not correct. What the Commissioners stated in their Report was that of three bodies, all defective—namely, municipal corporations, City companies, and Colleges at Universities—the municipal corporations were the least bad administrators. But then in the very next paragraph the municipal corporations are condemned, and in lieu of these bodies the Commissioners advise the introduction of three elements which should, if possible, form a combination representing the interests of parents, the interests of education, and those best qualified for the management of schools. The Commissioners attached very great importance to these principles, and until they were restrained by higher authority they were determined that in the case of every endowed school the Governing Body should be elected on these three principles. They meant to have a certain number of ex officio members, who would give stability and dignity to the school. They proposed to secure the representation of the interests of parents by introducing in every case a strong infusion of the representative element. The third element to which the Commissioners attached equal importance was the introduction of what were called co-optative members. He believed that the principles thus laid down had obtained the very general approval of existing trustees and of other persons interested in the subject. The Commissioners hoped, in many cases, to provide education for
1566
girls, and therefore it was important that ladies should be on the committees of management. With regard to the complaint of want of notice alleged by the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) on behalf of the Corporation of London, he could only say that the Commissioners gave them full notice of their intentions, and offered to hear them by counsel or in any other way. The Corporation, however, said the principle in dispute was one which must be decided by Parliament. In that they were perfectly reasonable; but they were unreasonable in stating now that they had been taken by surprise. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) alluded to the important question of gratuitous education, and mixed it up with the question of rich and poor; but he (Lord Lyttelton) did not very well see how that arose in connection with this matter. His noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) read the first 10 names of the parents of children in the school, and he might have read the whole and arrived at the same result—namely, that the scholars did not belong to what was commonly called the labouring class. The Commissioners would, in relation to these endowed schools, have regard to merit and not to nomination, supposed poverty, or any other consideration. They proposed to give free admission after competitive examination; but that examination would be on the simplest subjects—as, for instance, hand-writing, and the first two rules of arithmetic. The noble Marquess said that at present 147 children were educated at this school; but under the elastic scheme proposed by the Commissioners they would be able to educate 900, many of whom would be children of poor parents. When discussing these ancient deeds they must take into account the change of circumstances since they were made. He believed the education of children of the poor had received more attention and been made more easy of attainment by them than by any other class—even before the passing of the Elementary Education Act last year. He did not approve of the whole of that Act, but accepting it as the law of the land, they found that it provided that sufficient education should be put within easy reach of the children of the labouring class of the country. And while the children of the upper class derived great

1567
benefit from certain wealthy endowments, and while the children of the lowest class got education at one-third of its cost by means of grants from the Government, and commanded great resources from benevolent persons, nothing of any consequence had yet been done from public funds for the education of the children of the great middle class. Therefore, he admitted it would be the effect of the work of the Commission to give the lion's share and the chief advantage of the endowments under their control, taken as a whole, to the middle class rather than to the highest or the lowest class. Facilities would be given for the entrance among that class of the children of the lower class, and he believed that the intention of the founders would be best promoted, by drawing together the best talent and the best industry of the country, and by educating the children in the way to make them useful citizens. He hoped the Corporation of London would remain in the possession of the property which it possessed in the parish (Brandesburton) alluded to by the noble Marquess. As to the rest the Commissioners had taken the course which they felt bound to take under the Act of Parliament; and they would unquestionably adhere to the principle they had adopted until it was set aside by higher authority.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not intended to take part in this debate; but he could not refrain from making a few remarks on some points which had been raised in the discussion. The noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Lyttelton) said that the object of the Endowed Schools Act was almost exclusively to appropriate the endowments of those schools to the benefit of the middle class, who should have "the lion's share" of them. The noble Lord, of course, so understood the intent of the Act of Parliament, for he was not the man to advocate so unjust a policy; and, no doubt, a very large number of the schools coming under the Endowed Schools Act were foundations the benefits of which might be justly given to the middle class; but it seemed to him that where, as in the particular case before them, the founder had expressly specified that the endowments were to be for the benefit of a special class, and that, too, the poorest class in the country, they had no right whatever, morally or
1568
technically, to assume that the Act gave them power to override a distinct intention of that kind. The exclusion of the poorest class seemed to be as unwarranted by anything that had passed in either House of Parliament as it was on the commonest principles of justice. It had been urged that if the founders of those institutions had lived in our times they would doubtless have acted in accordance with the enlightened spirit of this age, and, instead of confining their endowments to the poor, would have given them to the middle class. All this was matter of conjecture; they might or might not have so acted on that supposition; but what had to be considered was the fact that the founders, having lived in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and having a great variety of classes before their eyes, had distinctly made choice of the poorer class as the persons whom they desired to benefit. In this instance the words of the charter mentioned the poor as the class for whom the endowments were intended. The noble Marquess who opened the debate (the Marquess of Salisbury), had not contended for the principle that gratuitous education should be given indiscriminately, but he had protested against the doctrine laid down by the Commissioners that the education in question should be given to the exclusion of the poor except by competitive examination, although the founder had contemplated no such limitation of his bounty towards them. It had not once in the course of this discussion been alleged that the management of this charity had been bad, but he thought he might boldly say that up to the present moment it had been good. They had been told that the total expenses amounted to about £4,000, and, considering that the number of boys educated and boarded was 147, and that that gave an expenditure of about £27 10 s. per head, he did not think the expenditure was very extravagant. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Lyttelton) said, indeed, that instead of educating 147 boys the scheme of the Commissioners would educate 900; but, if he understood him rightly, the noble Lord was speaking of the consolidated revenue of those schools; and, of course, if the endowments of three other large schools were added to the Emanuel Hospital they could easily educate a larger number of boys. The

1569
noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) stated that even under the original charter and arrangements of that institution the principle of merit was recognized because prizes and exhibitions were to be awarded to the best scholars. Surely, however, there was a vast difference between making merit the one single standard of admission for the boys in the first instance, and offering them exhibitions to be competed for in the later stages of their education. There was really no connection between the two propositions. Of course, the holding out of such inducements to those who should most distinguish themselves in the school was not only perfectly fair, but most salutary, and very desirable for the good of the school itself. Upon the list of 12 boys whose names the noble Viscount had read to the House no argument could be founded; but if any inference was to be drawn therefrom it would rather be against his speech than for it, for it showed that of those 12 many were orphans, and some, at least, belonged to the poorest class. But the object of the noble Marquess was not so much to find out whether certain boys came within defined limits of poverty as to protest against the action of the Commissioners in laying down the principle that they were not to recognize the claims of poverty in any degree. In that protest he concurred, because he considered it unfair to override the intentions of the founder of a charity, where no abuse had been mentioned; where no maladministration had even been hinted at; for if any persons deserved consideration at the hands of the Legislature it was the poor, and that especially in the matter of education. Though he had heard but little of this case before, and was unfamiliar with many of its details, he had to thank the noble Marquess for bringing it before the House, and he hoped that his noble Friend would follow out by action the arguments which he had laid before the House.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, there was a general impression abroad that all the small endowments which afforded gratuitous education to children principally because of the poverty of their parents were to be taken away. If it was the intention of the Commissioners to say that hereafter poverty should not be considered, their scheme ought to be denounced most absolutely. The competitive principle might cause a
1570
widow's children to be deprived of their education, and how could the future capabilities of a child of seven years old be ascertained? The horse that could win a race was not the best for all purposes, and a precocious child would not make the best man. All who were concerned in administering small endowments ought to know on what principle the Commissioners were proceeding, and whether they meant to enact that poverty should of itself be no claim to a share in an endowment.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that having been a member of the Endowed Schools Inquiry Commission, he hoped he might be allowed to say a few words on the subject of gratuitous education. The Commissioners had not decided upon the question whether a gratuitous education should be given without going into it with the utmost care and taking all the evidence that could be obtained. Whatever might be said with regard to individual cases, he did not think it possible for any man to come to any other conclusion than that at which the Commissioners had arrived—namely, that in the interests of the poor themselves the wisest use of the endowments was to devote them to the encouragement of merit, especially in the form of a higher education. Had the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) himself been a member of the Commission, and had he examined the question from many different sides, and heard the subject argued for and against for three consecutive years, he must have ended by agreeing with the Commissioners that that was the only principle they could act upon. The 11th clause of the Act under which the Commissioners were appointed required them, in interfering with any privilege or educational advantage to which particular persons or classes were entitled, to have a due regard to the educational interests of such class only—they were not permitted to have regard to any pecuniary interests whatever; and therefore any argument which travelled out of that line only amounted to a plea for the repeal of the Act. Confining himself, therefore, to educational interests only, he asserted that it was a very great misrepresentation to speak of the action of the Commissioners as if they were taking away the endowments of the poor and handing them over to the middle

1571
classes. The case was this. The benefit was to be given to the poor. He would assume for a moment that the best benefit that could be given to the poor was the means of higher education. For that purpose it was necessary to establish schools in which those who were selected should receive higher education. When these schools were established, and when they were schools for more advanced education, then they were of great use to the middle classes, if the middle classes were permitted to attend them and pay fees; and in that case it was in no sense a transference of the endowment to the middle classes. It was necessary there should be such schools if the benefit of which he had spoken was to be given to the poor; and if the schools were there, there was no reason in the world why the middle classes should not obtain the benefit to be derived from them. These classes, however, paid fees, and to refuse them the use of these schools under such circumstances was very like playing the part of the dog in the manger. If these schools existed, there was no reason why the children of the middle classes should not be admitted to them on the payment of fees, nor why the admission to them should be confined exclusively to competitive examination—those who were willing to pay fees ought to be admitted on passing an ordinary entrance examination, irrespective of competitive examination or competition. He asked their Lordships to consider how great a boon was often given by such endowments to many who desired an education such as their Lordships had themselves received, and who had found in the schools to which they went the means of getting a higher education than they could have otherwise obtained. There was really no greater blessing that could be given to any class, and none greater than opening to the children of the poorer class a higher education than they could have commanded had it not been for these endowments. He spoke with some feeling on this point, because when he was at school, it had been a constant stimulus to him to have the hope of some day or other winning the means of going to the University, and he knew that, unless he could win the means, he had no chance of going to the University at all. He saw others reaping the same benefit also; he knew what it did for
1572
him and others; and such a stimulus and reward were the very things that were now wanted in the schools of the poor. An Act had been passed which was to supply the country with schools. That Act required that the means of elementary education should be placed within the reach of every poor child. But there it stopped. If there were children who felt a desire to learn more than the elementary schools taught—if there were children who felt a strong impulse to learn more—and there were such children—there was no benefit that could be compared to giving them the chance of obtaining such exhibitions as carried himself and others to the Universities, to continue their education there to the highest point. Now, it had to be considered that in all such cases there must be selection. A certain number of children had to be selected. Take the case of the Emanuel Hospital. Lady Dacre had left property which was charged with the duty of educating 20 poor children. There were a great many poor children; how were they to be chosen? It was obvious that if out of the boys chosen there were some who were desirous of further education, and you selected these boys, you were still within the limits marked out by the benefactors. You were still benefiting the poor, enabling them to rise in the social scale, and to use their natural powers for the purposes of that advancement. The rates did not give the children of the poor the means of so advancing themselves; but these endowments seemed intended for that very purpose. It was a far higher benefit than an ordinary charity, because there was no charity which could for a moment compete with one which enabled the receiver to rise higher than he was. If the original founders of such endowments were living at this time, and if they could see the great blessing which these endowments were capable of conferring, they would consent to such a scheme as was proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners. But that was not all that could be stated—because if a few children were taken out and educated on the score of poverty the benefit stopped there, and nothing was done to confer benefit on the children all round; whereas if education was given in the way the Endowed School Commissioners proposed, it was not only a benefit to the

1573
receivers—it was a benefit to the whole school; it was a benefit in every way; it stimulated scholars, because they saw the prospects which might be obtained; it stimulated parents, because they began to think that after all there was something to be got out of the school; and it stimulated the teachers almost more than anything else because they were constantly encouraged by the reflection that they were helping the boys to win the means of future advancement. Having been a teacher himself, he could say how much the teacher was stimulated by knowing that he was able to help those who really desired to carry their education further by enabling them to win the means of doing so. For his own part, he should not have felt sorry if the whole of these endowments had been converted into exhibitions for the benefit of the children in the primary schools. Such a use of these endowments was, he believed, as distinctly within the meaning of the founders as was possible after this lapse of time. There was this difficulty; the schools to which these children wished to go did not exist, and therefore the schools must be created, and the children must be given the means of going. He did not think that those who had much experience of other modes of selection would, on comparing them with this one, long hesitate in the choice between the two. He was once in a parish which had a presentation to Christ's Hospital, which was given by the votes of the parishioners; and he could but remember the solicitation and the hypocrisy on the part of the applicants—how very much there was in the statements of the parents which put him in mind of the degradation of the begging-letter writer, and how plain it was that those solicitations were doing harm to those who were soliciting—how distinctly it was lowering and damaging to their character, and he could not but come to the conviction that any mode of selection was better than that. The proper mode was to go upon a broad principle, looking to the educational interests of the whole community, and picking out children whose education would be a benefit not only to themselves, but to the schools from which they came. Returning now to the subject of Emanuel Hospital. In the scheme proposed at Emanuel Hospital one-third of the exhibitions were to be
1574
restricted to the primary schools. To this extent, therefore, the children of the poor—those who attended the primary schools—would alone benefit. If this scheme were adopted, he believed that more distinctively poor children would attend the school than attended it under the present system. At present, the children were described as being of a class who could well afford to pay a fee of £4 a-year. Such children could hardly be said to belong to the very poor. The fact was, that the school had already been transferred from the class for whose benefit it was intended, and the scheme of the Commissioners really proposed to make it more a school for the poor than it now was. He did not blame the Corporation for what had happened; but they now required that the children should come of "respectable parents and householders," and such children could not exactly be said to belong to the poor class. That mode of selection was by no means so much in the interest of the poor as the mode of selection which would prevail under the scheme proposed. He had no doubt, he might add, that in conjunction with the Inspectors the governors of those schools would be able to lay down such rules as would diminish, if they did not entirely remove, any evils which might be expected to flow from the adoption of a pure competitive system. Regard might be had to the previous conduct of the scholars in the schools, their diligence, and general fitness. In that way he thought many of the objections of the noble Marquess might be obviated. In defending the principle on which the Endowed Schools Commissioners were acting, he did not yield to the noble Marquess opposite, or to any man, in a genuine desire to promote the interests of the poor, and he might point to Doncaster School, where, under the auspices of the present Master of the Temple, precisely the same plan as that which he was now advocating was adopted, and was found to give a great stimulus to all the schools in the locality, as an illustration of the wisdom of following a similar course in the instance under discussion. He had only, in conclusion, to express a hope that the Commissioners would persevere in acting upon the principle to which he referred, and to state that he felt quite sure the longer the matter was discussed the more clearly it would appear that the question

1575
was not one of robbing the poor, but of making a good instead of a bad selection, so that, as he had repeatedly seen, many who began by opposing the principle would, in the end, admit that a better could not be substituted for it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in reply, said, he found it very difficult to reconcile many statements that had been made in opposition to his view of the case. He could not admit that the present governors had not given the benefits of the school to the poor, because one of the conditions was that they should be given to respectable persons. This was the first time he had ever heard that the poor were not respectable, and he was rather surprised at the quarter from which the remark had come. The advocates of the Endowed Schools Commissioners gave different versions of the principle on which these schools were dealt with; but no doubt by the next time this subject was brought up, they would have arranged their case better. His own objection to the scheme of the Commissioners remained unshaken—that instead of selecting from among the poor, it took the foundation entirely away from the poor, and handed it over to the rich by the system of competitive examination proposed. Nor could he admit that competitive examination in the case of children of the ages prescribed could be at all regarded as a test of merit.
EARL GRANVILLEwas very glad that the debate had arisen, although he must observe that it was one of the most irregular of which he had any recollection, the discussion turning as it did on a Paper which was not before the House; and the noble Marquess who had just sat down having made two speeches, when there was absolutely no Motion before their Lordships.

BANKRUPTCY DISQUALIFICATION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY DISQUALIFICATION BILL.

  (NO. 65.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he should not have brought it on at a period of the evening when the attendance of Peers was not usually so numerous as at an earlier hour had he not
  1576
  ascertained that no opposition would be offered to its principle. The object of the measure needed but brief explanation. It was founded simply on the consideration that whereas by recent legislation Members of their Lordships' House had been made amenable to the laws of bankruptcy, and had been adjudicated bankrupts, it was desirable that that Assembly should not show itself less mindful of its dignity than the House of Commons had shown itself with regard to their branch of the Legislature. In the year 1812 an Act was passed—the 52 Geo. III. c. 144—which recited that it was highly necessary, for the preservation of the dignity and independence of Parliament, that Members of the House of Commons who became bankrupts and did not pay their debts in full should not retain their seats as Members of that House, and it was enacted that whenever a commission of bankruptcy should be awarded against any Member, such Member should for the space of 12 months be and remain utterly incapable of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, unless within that time the commission should be superseded, or unless he should have paid his creditors in full; in default of which, after the expiry of the 12 months, the election became void, and the Speaker was authorized to issue a new writ. Notwithstanding, however, the vacation of his seat, he was capable of being re-elected by his constituents, who were thus placed in a position to say whether they regarded him as fit or unfit to be returned to the Legislature. In the case of their Lordships' House, however, he believed it would be the opinion of almost every noble Lord that it would not be consistent with its dignity that one of its Members who had been adjudged bankrupt should continue to retain his right to sit and vote while his debts remained unsatisfied. The respect in which the House of Lords was held in this country was due to a variety of causes, some affecting portions of its Members and some others. There was the effect produced by long hereditary descent from distinguished ancestors, and the transmission of those qualities to those who succeeded them—a title to respect of which he was far from wishing to deny the validity, as, indeed, few could be who recollected that celebrated speech

  1577
  of Chief Justice Crewe in the De Vere peerage case in the time of James I. Again, the possession of large landed estates by so many of its Members gave to the House of Lords additional dignity and stability. Those remarks applied, however, to only a portion of its Members, for in every generation men were admitted within its walls who had no long line of historic ancestors and no large landed estates, but who owed the honours conferred upon them to services which they had rendered the State. But all the Members of the House of Lords, whatever their position might be, were, he was sure, equally anxious that it should enjoy the respect of the country; and in order to do that it was necessary that a high principle of honour should be maintained; and they could hardly hope to obtain respect due to honourable conduct if they were to look lightly on the circumstance of large debts being contracted without the means of paying them, or if they allowed it to be said that there were persons occupying seats in the highest House of Legislature, and taking part in the making of laws, who were unable to satisfy their ordinary debts and obligations. There might be cases in which the adjudication of bankruptcy might be reversed, and there might be others in which the bankruptcy might arise from injustice or error, or from misfortunes which could not be foreseen or were unavoidable; but one could not distinguish nicely in such matters. He apprehended their Lordships would not do ill to say that it was required by the dignity of that House that some protection should be thrown round the character of its Members, such as the Commons had thought fit in 1812 to throw round the Members of their Assembly. The present measure would simply give effect to these views. It was provided by the Bill that every Peer who becomes bankrupt shall be disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords; or, being a Peer of Scotland or Ireland, shall be disqualified from being elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords. A Peer who had become bankrupt would be restored to all his qualifications when, in the event of his bankruptcy being determined, either by the adjudication being annulled on the ground that such Peer ought never to have been adjudged bankrupt, or on its being proved to the satisfaction of the House of Lords
  1578
  that such bankrupt has been duly discharged from all debts and liabilities to which he was subject at the date of his bankruptcy. The penalty for a disqualified Peer sitting or voting was that he should be deemed guilty of a breach of privilege, and be dealt with as the House of Lords may direct. No writ of summons was to be issued to any Peer for the time disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, and no Irish or Scotch Peer was capable of being returned a representative Peer under the same circumstances. The same disqualifications were extended to any person who, having been adjudged bankrupt, should succeed to a peerage before his bankruptcy has been determined. The disqualification did not extend beyond the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, and therefore no bankrupt Peer would, under this Act, be deprived of any privileges to which he might be entitled in right of his peerage; nor would he be qualified to be elected to sit and vote in the House of Commons, in case he would not have been qualified had this Act not been passed. A question had arisen in his own mind, as well as in that of some others, as to how far the action of the Bill should extend—whether the full payment of the debts should be required or the discharge of the bankrupt should be sufficient to enable him to sit and vote in that House. By the Act of 1812 a Member of the House of Commons was required to make full payment or "satisfaction." Of course "satisfaction" might be made by the creditors agreeing to take less than the full payment. But the difference between the case of a bankrupt Member of that House and a bankrupt Member of the House of Commons was that the latter could be afterwards re-elected by his constituents if they thought fit; but in the case of a Peer, supposing him to satisfy his creditors in the sense which the Act of 1869 required, on his paying 10 s. in the pound, or obtaining a release by general consent, if their Lordships were to say that would not be sufficient they would enable three or four creditors who had not been satisfied to say they would accept nothing short of a full payment, and he would or would not act as a Peer according to their arbitrament. He, and some noble and learned Lords whom he had consulted, thought, on the whole, that to leave such a power to a few

  1579
  creditors would not be desirable. Such were the main provisions of the Bill—as to the details there would be full opportunity for discussing them on Thursday, when the House would go into Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, it must be the unanimous feeling of their Lordships that it was essentially necessary, after the legislation of 1869, that some such measure as that now before the House should be passed. In a tribunal like the House of Lords it would be very prejudicial to their power and reputation in the country if they were to attempt to shelter bankrupt Members under their wing, and enable them to take part in the proceedings of the House in a way that would not be tolerated by the other House as regarded Members of the House of Commons. He concurred with the noble and learned Lord as to the period at which the bankruptcy should cease, and also as to the inadvisability of enabling a few creditors unwilling to accept 10 s. in the pound to stand out and prevent a Peer from sitting in that House. He would not trespass on their Lordships' time any further, but wished to take that opportunity of expressing his cordial concurrence with the principle of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PROMISSORY OATHS BILL—(No. 64).
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PROMISSORY OATHS BILL—(No. 64).

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was simply to repeal a variety of Acts which were rendered entirely useless by the Act passed in 1868 with respect to the administration of oaths. A great many oaths, for which another oath had been substituted in the Act to which he referred, were required to be taken by Acts of Parliament, and these Acts had not been repealed.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

INCORPORATION OF TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.] &

  PRIMITIVE WESLEYAN METHODIST SOCIETY OF IRELAND REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  Bills referred to a Select Committee: The Lords following were named of the committee:

  E. Airlie.

  V. Lifford.

  E. Powis.

  L. Brodrick.

  E. Morley.

  L. Clandeboye.

  E. Dartrey.

  The petition presented this day, praying to be heard by counsel in favour of the Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation Bill [H.L.], referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioner to be heard as desired: The Committee to meet on Monday next, at Eleven o'clock, and to appoint their own chairman.—(The Lord Cairns.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.