Lords Sitting of 7 July 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * (247).
Committee—Courts of Justice (Additional Site) * (218).
Report—Petroleum* (238); Owens College * (245).
Third Reading—Tramways (Ireland) * (203); Bath City Prison * (80); Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) * (201), and passed.

PUBLIC SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS SCHEME—HARROW SCHOOL.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNasked whether, an Address having been voted by the other House of Parliament to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refer back for the second time a scheme
  1278
  of the Public School Commissioners relating to Harrow School for a re-consideration by the Commissioners, the Government intended to take any action? As their Lordships were aware, the great schools of Shrewsbury, Winchester, the Charterhouse, Harrow, and Rugby, were among the foundations referred to the Public School Commissioners by the Act of 1868, and consequently excepted from the operation of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. The latter Act also provided that no changes should be made in the character of the Governing Bodies of denominational schools. But the Commissioners having proposed that the Governing Bodies of the five schools he had named should be Churchmen, the House of Commons prayed Her Majesty to refer the schemes back to them. The Commissioners, on re-consideration, waived this qualification in the case of Shrewsbury, the Charterhouse, and Rugby, but retained it in the cases of Harrow and Winchester. The House of Commons recently—at 2 o'clock in the morning, and, as it appeared, without debate—adopted an Address praying the Crown to disallow the Harrow statute. This Motion was supported by the Government, though it was in direct contravention of the two Acts to which he had referred. As senior Governor of Harrow he would offer no opinion on the proposed change; but the Government having unanimously adhered to the Endowed Schools Commissioners in the case of Emanuel Hospital, though in opposition to the will of the founder, it was strange that they should wish to set aside the decision of the Public School Commissioners when those Commissioners were acting conformably with the intention of the founder.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Lord President he would answer the Question of the noble Duke. The Act applying to the schools in question was the Public Schools Act of 1868, and they did not in strict law come under the operation of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. The 17th section of that Act provided that membership of the Church of England should not be required as a qualification for membership of the Governing Body of any endowed school. Last year the House of Commons adopted an Address to Her Majesty, in which, referring to the five statutes establishing the constitution

  1279
  of the new Governing Bodies of these schools, they represented to Her Majesty that since the passing of the Public Schools Act of 1868, the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 had been passed, and prayed that Her Majesty would refer back those statutes to the Public Schools Commissioners—
  "In order that they might have the opportunity of re-considering certain parts of the said statutes with reference to the principles applied in the Endowed Schools Act to other Endowed Schools."
  The statutes were accordingly referred back and re-considered by the Commissioners, who abandoned the condition of Church membership in the cases of Shrewsbury, the Charterhouse, and Rugby, but retained it in the cases of Winchester and Harrow. An Address was moved this Session objecting to the condition of Church membership being introduced for the first time in the case of Harrow. There was no report of the debate, but eight Members took part in it, and it was carried by a large majority. Her Majesty had given the same answer to this Address as to that adopted by their Lordships respecting Emanuel Hospital—namely, that she would withhold her assent from such part of the scheme as had been objected to by their Address.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid: As one of the Special Commissioners under the Public Schools Act who have presented the scheme for Harrow School, I desire to make a few observations in addition to what the noble Viscount has said. The noble Viscount draws a parallel between the disallowance of a scheme for Emanuel Hospital upon an Address from this House, and a disallowance of the Harrow scheme upon an Address from the other House of Parliament. But the two Acts of Parliament under which these schemes are drawn are quite different. The Endowed Schools Act directs that the Crown shall disallow any scheme upon an Address from either House; but the Public Schools Act contains no such provision, nor did the Commissioners who administered it suspect that any scheme against which an Address might be presented would, as a matter of course, be disallowed without further consideration. With reference to the particular provision in question, the facts are these. The Public Schools Act was passed to carry out the changes recommended by the Schools
  1280
  Inquiry Commissioners in 1861, as the Preamble of the Act clearly shows. Now, it was one of their recommendations that the Governors of Harrow should be "members of the Established Church;" and therefore in inserting this provision in their original scheme the Commissioners were simply fulfilling the duty laid upon them by the Preamble of the Act. When the scheme was presented to Parliament last year an Address was moved in the other House that Her Majesty would be pleased to refer back the schemes of Harrow. Winchester, Rugby, Charterhouse, and Shrewsbury, for the purpose of considering these schemes in connection with the provisions as to the religious character of the schools of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869. My Lords, it is true that an Act passed for another class of schools in 1869 could have no effect on the Act passed in 1868 for the public schools, which were moreover exempted in express terms from the operation of the latter Act. At the same time, the Commissioners might very well, in a matter belonging to their discretion, use the latter Act for the purpose of illustrating the general policy of Parliament; they therefore accepted the task laid upon them by this Address, and proceeded carefully to ascertain which of the five schools were denominational schools, and which were not. They were of opinion that Charterhouse, Rugby, and Shrewsbury, did not come under this description, and that Winchester and Harrow did. About Winchester there is no dispute, although I cannot accept the noble Viscount's remark that Winchester is a cathedral school. It is, in fact, like Eton, connected with a college. With regard to Harrow, the case is simply this. By its charter the rules of the school were, after the death of John Lyon, to be drawn up by the Governors, with the consent of the Bishop of London, and any ambiguity was to be decided by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Every scholar was to learn the Lord's Prayer, the Articles of Faith, the Ten Commandments, and other chief parts of the Catechism. Almost the very words by which our Catechism is referred to in the Confirmation Service. The master is also to teach them out of Calvin's or Noel's Catechism. Noel's Catechism was published at the request of the two Archbishops, and sanctioned by the 79th Canon; and whilst Calvin's Catechism is

  1281
  not the work of a member of the Church of England, it was largely in use in England under the name of Stephen's Catechism, who was the translator of it. And Noell's Catechism, according to the authority of the present Bishop of Chester, is a good deal founded upon it. The scholars were to attend the parish church, and there was an endowment for the preaching of 30 sermons, the Headmaster to have the preference as the preacher of them. The secretary to the Governors informs us that the Governors have always been members of the Church of England, and the name of the Earl of Aberdeen, which has been quoted as an exception, turns out to be no exception at all. My Lords, I am at a loss to think of anything that is wanting here to constitute a Church school. A Bishop is to draw its rules, an Archbishop to interpret them; the Catechisms in use in the Church are to be taught to the boys; they are to receive instruction by sermons in the parish church, and the Governors have always been members of the Church of England. Upon these facts I venture to assert that Harrow is as much a Church of England school as Winchester itself. When the schemes were lately presented to Parliament embodying these results, Her Majesty's Government took a very unusual course. They had themselves accepted and promoted the reference to the Endowed Schools Act, and, having left the matter to the Commissioners, they were bound to abide by the result of it, even supposing that the Public School Commissioners had made some error in judgment. The Government might have induced Parliament to lay down that Harrow was or was not a Church of England school; but having chosen to refer this question to the Commissioners, they ought to have accepted the result even if they did not agree with it. I have tried to show your Lordships that it was completely right; but what was the course taken by the Government? Almost at the last moment, when it was too late for your Lordships' House to take any action in the matter, if you were so minded, a Motion was made to address the Queen to disallow the Harrow Statute as regarded this qualification of the Governors, that they should be members of the Church of England, and Her Majesty's Government gave their support to this Address, and accordingly the
  1282
  Statute is to be disallowed. The general policy of such a course appears open to question. Upon the Commissioners is thrown the responsibility of making statutes, whilst Parliament reserves to itself the power of disallowing them in whole or in part. But the part so rejected may be the result of much consideration and of a compromise between existing interests. Parliament should either undertake the responsibility of framing the schemes itself, or else it should attach some weight to the labours of those upon whom the responsibility is thrown. It is impossible, therefore, for the Commissioners to think with satisfaction upon the course that Her Majesty's Government have adopted.

ISLE OF ALDERNEY—FORTIFICATIONS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for a Return of expenditure incurred since the year 1850 on fortifications in Alderney, expressed his astonishment at the statement recently made by Opposition Members in the House of Commons that the harbour at Alderney was a harbour of refuge, and at the announcement made by Members of the Government that on the completion of the harbour fortifications would have to be constructed to defend it. The fact was that it was a military harbour, designed solely for the defence of the Channel, and the fortifications were constructed years ago, four or five forts being already completed, and eight batteries ready for arming. The works for the harbour and fortifications of Alderney dated back beyond 1850, and were strongly urged by the late Duke of Wellington and Lord Hardinge. It was thought by them, and by many other eminent naval and military authorities, that with Alderney on one side, and Portland on the other, the Channel would be made safe from hostile cruisers in the event of war. So far from circumstances having since occurred to render it less advisable to construct these fortifications at Alderney, they had become more and more expedient. Whatever was then doubtful was now favourable. The dimensions and increased power of our guns would enable us to pierce and destroy any ironclad that might enter the Channel. Lord Herbert, as Secretary for War, visited Alderney at his

  1283
  (the Duke of Somerset's) instance when First Lord of the Admiralty. He himself inspected it three times, first with Sir John Burgoyne, next with Sir George Lewis, and afterwards with Lord Ripon. Eminent authorities accompanied him on each visit, and on each occasion it was decided that the harbour and fortifications should be maintained. It would have been madness to make a harbour for merchant shipping among rocks; but the Government, apparently misled by the name "harbour of refuge," had actually regarded it as such, and had handed it over to the Board of Trade. That Board might as well have been intrusted with the fortifications of Gibraltar or Malta. The work, no doubt, was originally undertaken to some extent out of jealousy of Cherbourg; but long after that jealousy it was still deemed advisable for the defence of the Channel. At a time when there was so much discussion as to the safety of our shores, and when imaginary invasions and defences were published, some little attention might surely have been paid to Alderney; but the harbour, it appeared, was to be abandoned, and he wished to know whether the fortifications were also to be abandoned? At one time the House of Commons decided on erecting forts at Spithead; but a year or two afterwards, in a fit of economy, they were stopped, and a heavy fine had to be paid to the contractor, but next year the works were resumed. The sea wall at Holyhead had suffered from similar vacillations, and at Dover something of the same kind had occurred. It might be right to give up the works at Alderney, on which a large sum of money had been expended; but it could not be right that the House of Commons should decide in ignorance of the facts, and under the impression that the forts had still to be erected. Unless as a military harbour, the harbour was good for nothing; but as a military harbour, it was of the highest value. He believed that with telegraphic communication between Portland and Alderney, and a strong naval force at Portland, it would provide efficient means of defending the Channel.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House, Return of expenditure incurred since the year 1850 on the Fortifications in the Isle of Alderney.—(The Duke of Somerset.)
  LORD DUNSANYattributed the undertaking of the work to the mistaken impression that from Alderney one could look into Cherbourg. Its shallow water, strong tides, and sunken rocks, rendered Alderney an undesirable station for ships, and he doubted whether any useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the work.
  EARL COWPERstated, in reply, that the harbour was handed over to the Board of Trade in 1866, the noble Duke himself being then First Lord of the Admiralty, and probably taking part in the transfer. Mr. Hawkshaw had made a rough estimate of the amount required to repair the damage done to the harbour by a recent storm; but the Government were waiting for a more detailed estimate, and it would then have to be considered whether it was worth while expending any more money upon it. The original Estimate for that part of the harbour already constructed was £620,000, but over £1,300,000 had been spent upon it; and six successive heads of the Department had made changes in the plan, which might partly account for the increased cost. The harbour consisted at present of a western breakwater only; but if it were to be made secure there must be an eastern breakwater, which would also cost a large sum. When completed it would be almost useless in an cast wind, which was very violent at that spot, and would afford little safety even for a large ship. It was full of rocks, and was, indeed, the most dangerous spot in the Channel. £10,000 a-year would be required in perpetuity to repair breaches; while, according to a rough estimate, £250,000 would be required to prevent such breaches. It was a question how far it was wise to throw good money after bad, and whether the completion of an undertaking which everybody now condemned would prove a profitable investment.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, it was most lamentable that so large a sum of money should have been expended on a harbonr which was useless either for belligerent or commercial purposes, while there was so urgent a necessity for the construction of harbours of refuge on our northern and eastern coasts. The annual loss of property from shipwreck on our coast was estimated at £2,400,000, while the yearly loss of life was from 600 to 1,000.

  1285
  Notwithstanding the recommendations of a Select Committee and of a Royal Commission, no action had been taken by the Government, though local enterprise had so improved the mouth of the Tyne and Hartlepool as to supply some of the exigencies of our commercial marine. A time would come when the increasing loss of life and property would induce some attempt to provide protection for shipping, and those who denied the value of such protection might as reasonably deny the value of a wayside inn to a benighted wanderer on a desolate moor.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the Government thought the harbour had been undertaken as a harbour of refuge for our merchant shipping. The reason why the first Vote was taken for it under the name of a harbour of refuge was lest the jealousy of the French should be excited, the intention from the first being that Cherbourg should be watched from Alderney.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could not understand the conduct of the Government in this matter. They proposed a Vote for certain repairs of the harbour; but when that Vote came to be discussed it seemed to him that they practically condemned it, and consequently it was rejected by the House of Commons. He could not think that that was a right way of doing the business of the country. If it was proper to abandon Alderney—if we had spent our money upon it foolishly—we had better make an end of the expense, and it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government upon full deliberation to go down to the House of Commons and manfully make that declaration. If, on the contrary, they came to a different conclusion, and should be of opinion that, though originally it might have been a mistake to make this harbour, still as it had been made, it was advisable not to give it up, they ought to ask the House of Commons to vote the necessary repairs. He thought that in this matter they had evaded the proper responsibility that belonged to a Government. The course they had adopted was most fatal to the system of Parliamentary Government.
  Motion agreed to.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, on rising to move for certain Returns on the subject of Irish Railways, said, that respectable people of all classes in Ireland were unanimously of opinion that the Irish railway system should be placed on a different fooling. The men of business in Ireland felt every day, and, he thought, wisely felt, that on the question of Irish railways they had been very much misgoverned. Since 1865 there had been meetings annually in Dublin, attended by the Members for the City, by members of Chambers of Commerce, by merchants and other men of business, to urge the placing of the system of Irish railways on a different footing. Similar meetings had been held in Belfast, Londonderry, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, and other towns that were equally anxious on this subject. The counties also had taken part in the movement. The landlords felt that the Irish railway system was not suited to the country, and that great improvements might be made in it without any loss to the National Exchequer. The wish of the people was not to get public money—all they desired was that the policy of 1844 should be put into practice with regard to Irish railways. The Government had more than once listened to representations from Irish railway companies, and considerable sums had been granted, which had gone in a wrong direction, because it had gone to prop up a bad system. Nothing was more likely to induce the Irish people to join what was called the National party, and to advance the views of the Home Rule Association, than to lead them to think that the material interests of their nation were neglected, and it was impossible to say that the material interests of Ireland were properly attended to, when the question of the Irish railways was treated in the way in which it was at present.
  Moved that there be laid before this House,
  Return of the various corporations, boards, and other public bodies in Ireland, including meetings of counties and towns convened by lawful authority, which have expressed to the Irish Government or to the Treasury their desire for an alteration of the present system of management of the Railways of that country since the first of January 1866:

  1287
  Also, Copy of a Memorial on the same subject, signed by many Peers and Members of the House of Commons, and presented to the Treasury,—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNexpressed the satisfaction he felt at the noble Marquess having brought forward this subject, which he regarded as being of the greatest importance to Ireland, and one which had attracted considerable attention in that country of late years. It was one of those questions—unfortunately so rare—from which all party and political feelings were excluded. It had been conclusively shown that it would be of the greatest advantage to Ireland if a comprehensive scheme with respect to the railways of that country were taken in hand by the Government, and he hoped it would be taken into their serious consideration.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, he did not suppose that the noble Marquess expected him to enter on this occasion into a statement of the views of the Government on the whole question; and he was sorry to say that it was impossible to comply with the first part of the Motion, because as the various Memorials and papers of that kind, presented from time to time to successive Lords Lieutenant of Ireland, had not been regarded as of an official character, but had been dealt with as other less official correspondence, the documents moved for were not in the hands of the Irish Office. As to the second part of the Motion, relating to the Memorial presented to the Treasury, he was instructed to state that the Department had considerable objection to the practice on a Motion in either House of Parliament of directing the printing of Memorials of this description. That document was a very lengthy one, and the printing would, of course, involve considerable expense. For these reasons, he regretted that the Government could not consent to the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEreplied, and the Motion
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.