§ A Petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London against the proposed scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, presented by the Duke of Richmond, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
§ THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYrose to move that an humble Address should be presented to the Throne against the proposed scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of 863 Emanuel Hospital, and said—My Lords, two years ago Parliament passed an Act giving very large powers to the Endowed Schools Commissioners. It was an Act founded upon an inquiry that had previously been gone into by the Schools Inquiry Commission as to the mode in which the revenues of the large number of endowments existing in this country was spent. A great number of abuses was discovered. Perhaps their number was a little exaggerated, but no doubt there was a great number of real abuses, and the general feeling of Parliament was that large powers and efficient machinery were necessary to bring them to an end. Now, my Lords, under the influence of that feeling the Act to which I refer was passed with but little difficulty. The second reading passed without opposition; but the idea attached to the Act, and the understanding on which both sides agreed to it, was that it was intended to remedy abuses existing in the administration of endowments, and no idea prevailed that it was meant to give the power entirely to destroy the character of endowments, and to upset the dispositions which the founders had made for the disposal of the money they had left. Now, my Lords, the understanding on that head was not merely a tacit one. It rested on the distinct announcements of Mr. Forster, and made by him both in his public and private capacity, that the Act would only apply to schools that were ill-managed, and that schools that were well managed had nothing to fear from its operations. When he moved the second reading of the Bill he said he wished it to be distinctly understood, both by the House and by the managers of good schools, who had no ground for alarm respecting the measure, that it was meant to apply to badly managed schools, and that schools which are well managed need fear nothing from the Bill, the object of which is to introduce good management. Nor is that the only pledge of Mr. Forster. I have been informed by a member of a deputation that waited on him from the schools connected with the charities of Bristol, that he assured them that the Bill was only introduced to remedy the defects of endowments that were misapplied, obsolete, or mismanaged, and that as the Bristol schools were not open to these charges they had no cause for alarm, 864 for it was not intended to interfere with the good schools. That was also the tone of the Members of the Government in this House when the Bill was before your Lordships. Now, my Lords, I have to ask, in what spirit the enormous powers of the Act have been applied by the Endowed Schools Commissioners and by the Government which gives effect to their recommendations? The Endowed Schools Commissioners have altogether set aside the idea of interfering only with abuses. They have persisted in the theory of crushing the whole thing into the crucible and polishing it over after the pattern they had set up; or, in the language of the noble Lord at the Table, their principle had been that the founders should go to the wall, and that the middle classes should have the lion's share of the endowments. I will also say that, so far as it has gone, that also has been the principle on which the Committee of the Privy Council have acted. Now, my Lords, I will venture to ask the opinion of your Lordships on this individual scheme, not merely on account of its intrinsic importance—not simply because it interests the Corporation of London, though they are a very important body, but because it is a typical scheme; because it enshrines a principle, and because that principle has excited, throughout the kingdom, feelings of the widest and deepest alarm. It will be my duty to prove that, in the case of Emanuel Hospital, there are no abuses; because if an abuse can be proved, I abandon the case. I am not here to defend abuses in endowed schools. Wherever they can be proved, let them be treated as effectually and as drastically as you will. I am here to maintain that the bequests of founders ought to be thoroughly but intelligently carried out, and that unless abuses in their administration can be proved, the actual administration ought not to be interfered with. Now, my Lords, as to Emanuel Hospital the Commissioners have been shy of imputing abuses to it. There has been an active correspondence, but when they were challenged to indicate abuses they have generally shrunk from the task. But at last—quite at last—within the last two days, they have come forward somewhat more frankly on the subject, and in a Paper which they have issued to your Lordships—too recently for any distinct answer from those who 865 are attacked—they have stated two grounds of charge against the management of this hospital. One charge is that it is extravagantly managed, and the other that the benefit of the charity is given, not to the poor, but to the lower-middle class. Now, I think I am in a condition to disprove both these charges. The first and most important question is, have these schools been devoted to the class for which the founder intended them? The words of the founder are clear. They are "for poor children," and if it shall be proved that they have not been so applied—if they have been jobbed away and made a matter of mere patronage, without reference to poverty, I will admit that there is a strong case against the existing administration. But, my Lords, what are the facts? Mr. Fearon, the Assistant Commissioner, upon whose evidence the Endowed School Commissioners mainly depend, makes no statement as to Emanual Hospital in particular, but says that the class to which it belongs are used for the benefit of the messengers in the Houses of Parliament and of persons in the employment of the governors. Now, my Lords, it is a curious fact that in Emanuel Hospital only one such child is to be found. The official return is as follows:—Out of 57 children who were at the school when the Assistant Commissioner visited it, 23 were orphans (I suppose there was no question that orphans whose fathers were dead were poor children); one child was a deserted child; two were the children of incapacitated parents—I have no items respecting three of the children—and of the remaining 28 I have obtained the incomes of their parents, and the average income per day of each individual I will state. I learned that the average number of children in these families was more than seven, which is a very far greater abundance to relieve than the philosophers of the present day say is sufficient, and that number is five. Well, my Lords, I want to lay before your Lordships the amount which these families had to support each child, and so test the observation which had been made that these were not poor children. The average amount for each child was 6d. a-day. If 6d. a-day is not poverty, I do not know what is. I should like to see the Endowed School Commissioners living on 6d. a-day. Hitherto the school has been given to poor chil- 866 dren. Now, then, the question arises, has the fund been wastefully administered. The Commissioners—they do not condescend to particulars—said that the management had been obviously wasteful. That is a convenient phrase, but they abstain from particulars. I will ask your Lordships to go with me into the particulars of this point. There are 64 children now under education. The Commissioners say that the expenditure is £2,000 a-year; but in order to test whether this is extravagant or not, you should compare the amount with what the Commissioners propose to expend. Those 64 children cost £24 2s. a-year each for board and education. The Commissioners propose that their children at the boarding school should cost £26 a-year; and therefore I cannot see on what principle the governors of Emanuel Hospital can be charged with extravagance. At the St. Ann's Asylum the children cost £32 a-year. I have never heard it said that that was an ill-managed hospital; and believe that there is no ground whatever for this charge of extravagance which the Commissioners made in this transient manner, saying there was "obvious extravagance" without giving any proof. It may be said that the education in not sufficiently good. But in 1855, Mr. Moseley, the Assistant Commissioner, visited the schools and expressed himself satisfied. Then an examiner from St. Mark's Hospital, Chelsea, concludes his report by saying that he considered the instruction thoroughly sound and useful, and highly creditable to those engaged in the work. For what purpose, then, is there to be this change in the management? I consider this to be important when I consider how far it will work. If you upset the management of the Corporation of the City of London, the management in every other town in the kingdom will be upset also; and I cannot look with confidence or equanimity on the rough dismissal of the present trustees from the duties which they have well fulfilled, and the substitution of a new-fangled body at the veto and control of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The practice of England has become the practice of other countries. It has been our practice to trust to local enthusiasm and local zeal. We have not collected up all the strings into a single knot to be placed in the hands of central Commissioners. We 867 know that not far from us other nations have pursued a different course and had centralized their local institutions, and we are at this moment in a condition to judge how far the experiment has succeeded. But there is much more in the matter. It was not that the control of the City of London over these schools had been broken. It is that the schools have been wrested from the objects to which Lady Dacre devoted them. The poorer classes have gone abroad and the middle classes have got a large share of the endowments. The endowments have been taken from the poor, to whom they were given, and I come here to-night to ask your Lordships to interpose by your veto and forbid these schemes from becoming law. Now, my Lords, the scheme of the Commissioners consist of two parts. They set up a day school, and they set up a boarding school. With the day school I am not concerned to argue much. It is a day school at rates running up to £6 a-year, and at that rate for schools of 300 or 400 boys the schools ought to be very nearly self-supporting. It may be true that these schools will furnish accomodation to the inhabitants of Westminster. If the schools fill well the expense will be entirely covered, and the endowment will not be seriously interfered with; but if the schools do not answer, I would venture to suggest that at the point of day schools there is a very great departure from the founder's original bequest and the rights of the poor, because I think that even the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Lyttelton) will agree with me that if a child has only 6d. a-day to live upon the whole cannot be spent on education. It is as plain as possible that persons who pay 6d a-day for schooling must be of the superior classes. But I ask your Lordships rather to turn your eyes from the day school to the boarding school. Lady Dacre's bequest was entirely for a boarding school. The pupils were to be brought up in the hospital, and the object of the bequest was domestic education—the education of the boarding school; and the Commissioners have set up a boarding school, and they have assigned £15,000 for the building of this boarding school. It is proposed to charge from £24 to £26 a-year, with an entrance of £2. A poor person cannot pay £26 a-year for the education of his children. Such a sum 868 can only be paid by a person having at least £200 a-year. Persons struggling for a living cannot become boarders. And yet these are the persons for whom the school was founded. But, then, there are the exhibitions. The governors are authorized under this scheme to grant four exhibitions to such children as shall deserve them by merit. But merit means examination. Instead of looking on this money as money to be disposed of according to the will of the founder, the Commissioners look upon it as devoted to carrying out examinations. I do not wish to depreciate competitive examinations. My University in competitive examinations holds a high place, and competitive examinations have done great things to raise the standard of education. But it is proposed to apply competitive examinations to children of seven years of age. The rule is that no one shall enter who is more than 13 or less than 7, and the bequest will be given to those who succeed in these competitive examinations. I think it will be at once clear that success in competitive examinations will fall to the lot of those who have had money to pay for their teaching. As years go on native ability may make up for the want of money; but early in life success in competitive examination depends on previous preparation—and previous preparation means nothing more than the possession of money. The prizes are to be given to the middle classes. The payment of £26 a-year will insure this. Great attention is now being paid to the subject of middle-class schools, and philanthropic persons are giving of their means to promote the object if the movement goes on. But there is a difference between the old-fashioned Christian enthusiast and the philosophic enthusiast of the present day; and that difference is, that whereas the Christian gave his own money, the philosopher always tries to give the money of some one else. I freely admit that middle-class education is a noble work; but I believe it to be a greater and nobler work to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to educate the poor. These, my Lords, were the objects for which Lady Dacre left her money, and she did not leave it to that object by cheating her heirs, but she accumulated the money by her own self-denial. Now, it is proposed to take this money from the poor, and give it to 869 the middle classes. The middle classes do not ask for it. At a large meeting in the City of Westminster this scheme was almost unanimously rejected on the part of those who are supposed to be benefited by it. Still it is proposed to give it to the middle classes. I might dwell, I think, with some effect on your Lordships' minds on the political evil and danger arising from a wanton interference with the bequests of the day. Recollect that a carping spirit is going on now as it did in past times. If you once drive into the mind of those who are willing to give their money for the good of their kind that they cannot be certain that it will not be devoted to some philosophical crotchet of the day there will be no more bequests or endowments. I can imagine nothing, not even in private property, more sacred and inviolable than that which is left for the support of a class which has nothing else to depend upon, and I know that when I appeal to your Lordships to interpose your veto in the present instance to stop the proposed desecration I shall not appeal in vain.
§ Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that the proposed scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of Emanuel Hospital in the parish of Saint Margaret in the city of Westminster will have the effect of diverting a large portion of the endowments of the said hospital from the education of the poor to which they were assigned in the charter of foundation, and of withdrawing the government thereof from the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the city of London against whose management no charge has been established; and praying that Her Majesty will withhold Her assent from the said scheme.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I would venture to remark that though the Motion of the noble Marquess is directed only to the case of Emanuel Hospital, his speech has raised the whole principle of the Endowed Schools Act, and might have been delivered against the second reading of that measure.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAs I understand it I am perfectly satisfied with the Preamble of the Act. I object only to the way in which it is being applied by the Endowed Schools Commissioners.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXMy Lords, I will refer the noble Marquess to the enacting clause rather than to the Preamble, and I cannot help saying that I still think that his speech, both now and 870 on a previous occasion, was directed against the Act itself. That Act was passed on account of many schools being mismanaged, and on the recommendation of a Commission presided over by my lamented Friend, Lord Taunton—a man of calm judgment, and not at all likely to be led away by the philosophers of whom the noble Marquess appears to be so much afraid. The Commission was composed of men of great ability, of all shades of politics, and representing all classes of society, and was obviously entitled to great deference. In consequence of their Report the Endowed Schools Act was passed. The Act gave the present Commissioners the largest powers for carrying out the principles laid down by the Schools Inquiry Commissioners. The object was to put the schools into such a shape as would be most conducive to the promotion of education; and Mr. Forster, whose name has been brought prominently forward by the noble Marquess, and who had been one of the Commissioners, distinctly stated that the object was not the primary education of the children of the working classes, the necessity of whose sustenance compelled their parents to take them away at an early age—nor the education of children of the superior classes, who were able to remain at school and at the Universities to a late period—but the education of a secondary class—namely, the lower-middle class, with such portion of the working class as showed special fitness. Mr. Forster again said that these schools might be made to provide good education for the middle class, and also to meet those comparatively exceptional cases in which children of working men were specially fitted for a higher education and could be allowed by their parents to remain at school. In this House, too, a noble Earl, who is not now present, said the Bill was likely to give an improved education to the children of the middle class, and that a portion of the working class would also benefit. On that occasion some of the details of the Bill excited discussion, but no objection was taken in either House to its principle. The noble Marquess has denounced the principle of spoliation; but I contend that the Commissioners would clearly have failed in their duty to Parliament and the country had they not based their scheme upon the avowed principles 871 and intentions of the Act, and I say that to arrest their action would be to frustrate the whole course of inquiry and legislation which have been proceeding during the last two or three years. Then, my Lords, in reference to another point which has been mentioned by the noble Marquess—departure from the intentions of the founders—let me say that the Corporation of London have proposed a scheme which departs from them still more widely, for while the Commissioners would leave the almshouses under the management of the Corporation, dealing only with that portion of the funds intended by Lady Dacre for educational purposes, the Corporation are for giving up the almshouses and founding a school in the country. The noble Marquess says that funds are diverted from the education of the poor, contrary to the will of the founder. It should be borne in mind that in Lady Dacre's will there is not a word about the poor; her words were—
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.Now, my Lords, with reference to the management of the estates by the Corporation of the City of London, I fully believe that the Corporation have administered the Brandesburton Estate very well, though I cannot admit that its improved value is altogether owing to their management; for, knowing something of that part of Yorkshire, I must be allowed to attribute the increased value of the property mainly to the conversion of sheepwalks into arable land, as is the case with many other estates in the neighbourhood. I am perfectly willing to believe that the Corporation have done all that befits good landlords; but it does not necessarily follow that they are the best managers of a school. The two things are totally different and distinct. It must also be remembered that this scheme deals not only with Emanuel Hospital, but with three other foundations as well, which are to be consolidated with that Hospital, and are to be placed under one management. My Lords, it is my decided opinion that by adopting this plan much would be done to secure the good management of these schools. The noble Marquess opposite has said, and said truly, that these schools ought 872 to be placed under the management of a local body; but the proposed scheme would render the managing body far more local than it is at present. The Endowed Schools Commissioners thought a school can scarcely be well managed by a body constituted for other purposes, and that it ought to be managed by a government specially appointed for the purpose, which will be the case under the scheme of the Commissioners. Then, my Lords, comes the question whether the funds of these foundations ought not to be applied so as to provide eleemosynary education for the poor. In discussing this point I feel bound to remind the noble Marquess that there is no mention of the education of the poor in the will of the foundress of the institution. I showed, on a former occasion, that many of the children now educated are not the children of poor persons. The noble Marquess has questioned the accuracy of that statement. I do not profess to have any personal knowledge of the matter myself; but the statement I made was derived from a document drawn up by the schoolmaster of the school with the view of giving information, and not for the purpose of making out a case. The real question, however, is how to apply the funds of these various institutions most advantageously for the poor. The proposal to provide eleemosynary education for the poor has been unanimously condemned by the Report of the Commission, and it has already been shown in an able and eloquent address by one of your Lordships that eleemosynary education is the worst that can be provided for the poor. At the present moment in the four schools 147 boys are educated at an animal cost of £4,000; whereas under the new scheme, at the same cost, there would be educated 300 boys in a lower school, 300 in an upper day school, and 150 in a boarding school;—which latter number, if circumstances will permit, will be subsequently increased to 300. My Lords, the noble Marquess has complained that the boys will be required to show that they have received the rudiments of an education before they will be admitted into the school. But all that they will be required to do will be to read monosyllabic narrative and to write text hand. Again, the exhibitions are to be obtained by competitive examination, in accordance with 873 the recommendations upon all occasions of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. Were these recommendations to be set aside and the exhibitions to be given by favour the promoters of the scheme would be reverting to the old system of education, which has been generally pronounced to be inefficient and unsatisfactory. I will not trespass further on your Lordships' time by going further into this matter. I have done my best to show—and I trust I have shown—that the adoption of the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners will be advantageous to those whom it was intended to benefit, and that I have met the objections that have been raised by the noble Marquess to their proposal.
§ LORD BUCKHURSTMy Lords, I will trouble your Lordships with very few observations upon the subject-matter of the Motion before the House. In the first place, although there is no mention in the will of Lady Dacre of the education of the poor, yet in the Charter of Incorporation of Emanuel Hospital special provision is made for the maintenance of 20 poor aged people and 20 poor children. I must own that I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) say that the Hospital was not founded for the benefit of the poor. In the scheme of the Corporation of London it is said that not less than 70 poor children—to consist as nearly as may be of an equal number of boys and girls—shall be lodged, victualled, clothed, and educated in the new schools, in such a manner as the Governors may from time to time direct, and who, when admitted, shall not be under 7, nor over 10 years of age. Now, my Lords, I certainly find nothing of that sort in the scheme which is propounded by the Endowed Schools Commissioners. In conclusion, allow me to say that I am not myself in any way interested in this matter beyond family connection with the foundress of the charity. I am not personally interested in the charity beyond being related by descent to its foundress, and I rejoice to see it under the management of so liberal a Governing Body as the Corporation of London, while, on the other hand, I should very much regret if it were transferred to other hands, or if its revenues—which were originally intended for the benefit, of the poor—were appropriated to other purposes. I say, again, that I could not 874 help expressing my regret if I were to see it removed from the superintendence of so liberal and enlightened a body as the Corporation of the City of London, and appropriated to other purposes than those which were intended by the foundress.
§ LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that before he attempted to answer any of the arguments which had been brought forward by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) who had introduced this question to the notice of their Lordships, he might be permitted to say that if he was to continue to be connected with the Endowed Schools Commission he might, perhaps, naturally hope that the time would come when they should ceased to be called plunderers of the Church, robbers of the poor, perpetrators of sacrilege—and other flowers of rhetoric which on high authority in that House, in the Guildhall, and in other parts of the country, were now applied to them on all sides. Neither, perhaps, was it surprising if he should wish to offer a few words in their defence, and should take the first opportunity which was afforded him to go a little more into general topics than was suggested by that particular case. He wished in the first place to point out that all the attacks which had been made upon the Endowed Schools Commission were really attacks upon the Act of Parliament which it was their duty to carry out. Noble Lords, he must say, seemed never to have at all considered the Endowed Schools Act, and he would engage to say they had never paid proper attention to its 9th and 10th clauses; for it undoubtedly was because they were endeavouring to give honest effect to the intentions of that Act, that they were assailed as they had been. It was not for him to attempt to defend the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) which had been so often quoted; but the Endowed Schools Commissioners did not stand upon the words of any Minister of the Crown, or of anyone whatever, but upon the Reports of the Schools Inquiry Commission, to which the noble Marquess had not once referred, and the recommendations of which they maintained that they were endeavouring to carry into effect in their schemes. They stood also upon the terms of the Act of Parliament, in which not a word was said about bringing abuse and mismanagement home to the 875 present managers of the schools, nor about the will of the founders, except in the few words of the Preamble so often quoted, and in which the whole purpose held before the Commission was to make use of those endowments in the best way in which, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, they could be rendered conducive to the education—of whom? Not of the poor—not of any one class—but of boys and girls generally. The whole purpose laid before them was how to make use of the endowments in the best way for the diffusion of education. And with regard to the will of the founder, that was interpreted to them as being that a liberal education was to be put within the reach of all classes. Now, with reference to certain casual expressions used by himself and some of his colleagues before the Act was in operation, and before they were appointed, he was prepared to justify those expressions, in substance, at least, though, perhaps, not every exact word of them. He had no doubt he had said that if the best, or anything like the best, application that could now be made was to be made of school endowments, it was absolutely inevitable that the will of the founders should be disregarded. He did not hesitate to say that he thought it an unsound and untenable principle that the will of the founder of what were called charitable purposes ought necessarily to be maintained to all time, according to his own original intentions; as a fact the will of the founder had in innumerable instances been departed from, and in Middlesex in hardly one case had it been found practicable to adhere to the will of the founder. They should be guided by what the founders would be likely to think by the altered state of the circumstances in which they lived. But he would not stand on that general ground. He was perfectly content with the interpretation given in the Act which they had to administer, and would say that they had, in any particular matter, to give effect to the founder's main design. In innumerable instances it was of the very necessity of the case that the will of the founder should be departed from. In the 7th vol. of the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission it was set forth at great length that in the county of Middlesex in hardly one case was it found practicable or consistent with public policy not 876 to depart, and depart widely, from the founder's intention; and where great benefit would be derived from such departure, they might fairly consider that what he would himself have done under an altered state of circumstances might be more safely made their guide now than the mere actual terms of his bequest. The words of the Act required them to give effect to the main designs of the founder—which were interpreted to be to put a liberal education "within the reach of all classes." He begged attention to those last words, which implied that the actual and direct benefits of those foundations were to be given to those who exerted themselves—those who made an effort to obtain them. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other day said that to give rewards to merit was part of the jargon of the present day, and that it must mean competitive examination. That was a doctrine which he (Lord Lyttelton) was not prepared to admit. But, assuming that the exhibitions and scholarships were to be given by competitive examination, he said there was nothing in the scheme which was propounded to prevent the Governors from fixing a limit as to the age of the children who should be subjected to it. If he understood the word rightly, merit meant industry, good character, steadiness, and other qualities besides cleverness. Now, a paper signed by the head masters and many assistant masters of endowed schools had been largely circulated, commending the principle that there should be no gratuitous education, except as the reward of merit; and the authors of the document expressed an opinion to the effect that the opening of the privileges of a foundation to general competition would, so far from thwarting the intention of the founders, be really the only method of fulfilling their desire and promoting education. So much for the wills and intentions of the founders. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had done him the honour to allude to a remark of his, but with peculiar ignorance of the meaning of one of the most common expressions; the noble Marquess did not seem to know the meaning of the phrase "the lion's share." He (Lord Lyttelton) certainly did use that phrase on the occasion referred, to as descriptive of the inevitable result following upon the 877 course recently pursued—he did say that "the lion's share" of certain endowments would go to the middle class, construed in a large sense—not that those endowments would go to the poor. He would, perhaps, have expressed the same idea more guardedly and accurately, if he had said that the funds would go to the promotion of secondary education—in other words, to obtain for the children those advantages in the shape of superior education and physical training which neither the funds subscribed by charitable persons, nor public funds at present provided. Elementary schools could be largely benefited, by giving out of these endowments means for higher education. A strong case could certainly be made out in favour of the principle that a greater portion by far of the ancient endowments ought to go for the benefit of those just above the very poorest. Endowments were not intended as a rule by the founders for any particular class, but were rather intended to draw forth the best children, and to extend their benefits as much as possible, so as to make them grow up the best citizens of the State. All founders intended that the benefits to be conferred by their endowments should be as widely diffused as possible—should fall upon all classes, and be applied to educate those children who would be likely to make the best use of their bounty, and become by means of it the most useful citizens of the State. It so happened that the lower grades of the middle class, the class which would make most of the means at its disposal, benefited least of all by these endowments. If the old state of things existed, he would still be prepared to contend that the greater portion of those endowments would be for the humbler classes, rather than for the upper classes, who had, however, benefited by them to a very material and important degree. Even if the Elementary Education Act of last year had not been passed, the children of the very poor would have been in a better condition comparatively than the middle class. If, however, a vacuum had existed in the educational means of the poorest classes, that vacuum had been filled up by the Act of last year; unquestionably, a vacuum existed in the educational means at the disposal of the middle classes, and that the law in no way provided for. In dealing 878 with those schools the Endowed Schools Commissioners did not go upon the ground of poverty alone; but, at the same time, they maintained that they would benefit the poor a great deal more than the Corporation of London did. They did not allege that an abuse, in the technical sense of the word, existed:—they merely found the broad fact that 143 children were educated, while under the scheme they proposed from 750 to 900 children would be educated far more completely, and with a power of considerably increasing the number, at a small charge which, from time to time, would be further reduced or entirely remitted. They likewise proposed to admit children from the class who left at about the age of 14; and of the exhibitions and prizes they would give one-third — more than equalling the total number of children now in the schools—to the class who attended the elementary schools, and one-third to the orphans of the same class, whose poverty and distress gave them strong claims to consideration. He said, therefore, that whether with regard to the day schools, the boarding schools, or the girls' schools, the scheme of the Commissioners would give to the more praiseworthy and industrious children of the poor very much more than was done under the existing system, or than was promised. Now, he would not be tempted to go through the numerous papers with which he dared say most of their Lordships had been furnished every morning almost by the Corporation of the City of London; but he did assert before their Lordships, that he could with the utmost possible ease show that almost every single statement in those papers was incorrect. He would give an illustration of the misrepresentation made in an official letter, to which the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners were exposed. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) who had brought the subject of Morgan's School, Bridgewater, under their Lordships' consideration the other night, with all his acumen and accuracy of mind allowed himself to be misguided by the representations made to him, and was under the impression that there was an expressed intention with regard to that school to set aside the teaching of the doctrine of the Church of England.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he stated that the Endowed Schools Com- 879 missioners recited in the Preamble of their scheme, that it was their intention to preserve the teaching of the Church of England; but that was valueless, because it was practically unapplied before they got to the end of the scheme.
§ LORD LYTTELTONThere was no recital at all, but the Governors were enjoined to give instructions according to the provisions of the scheme. As he had stated, it would not be pretended that the foundation of Emanuel Hospital was one of a denominational character; but in this, as in every one of their schemes, the Commissioners specially required that the Governors and masters should carefully provide for the religious instruction of the scholars. Yet, in the face of that clause, the authorities of the City of London had stated in an official letter, that the scheme of the Commissioners was to be a purely secular one. He repeated that the Endowed Schools Commissioners made no allegation of abuse or mismanagement; but the Act told them to provide in the best way they could for the interests of education, and they conceived that the question of the Governing Body was, perhaps, the most material of all the questions affecting that education. Moreover, what they had to provide for was not the present day alone. They had, as far as they could, to meet the wants of posterity. They, therefore, did not propose to continue to vest the government of schools in the hands of a single Corporation, but proposed a threefold constitution of the Governing Body, including the element of election. It had been said that the Commissioners had no right to construe the Act, except with reference to abuses or mismanagement in the Governing Body. The question was raised in the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and a proposal to limit the power of the Commissioners to interfere with the constitution of Governing Bodies only in cases where abuse or mismanagement had been proved, was rejected by a majority of some 15 to 2. So that in the House of Commons, in the Select Committee to whom that Bill was referred, that very point was brought forward, under the distinct Motion made that no Governing Body should be heard, except upon proved cases of mismanagement against them; and on the division upon that proposition there were 15 against it and 880 2 in favour of it; and the question was again brought forward by one of those 2—his own son-in-law (Mr. J. G. Talbot)—he brought it forward again, and did not divide upon it. No one had alleged mismanagement against those venerable and distinguished Bodies who, under the presidency of his Grace the Archbishop of York, had the management of those seven favoured schools in the country which the Commissioners sought to reform. He thought he had now gone through and answered without exception all the points raised by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had complained of the late period at which a Paper issued by the Commissioners had been laid before Parliament; but that being so, he (Lord Lyttelton) would remind the House that the Commissioners had nothing to do with the documents after they left the office. As far as the Commissioners were personally concerned they desired publicity for their proceedings; but no doubt Her Majesty's Government had excellent reasons for withholding the Paper until the period at which it was submitted to Parliament. He had only one word to add to what he had already said. Let their Lordships look at what the effect would be of a decision against that scheme—what other scheme had they got? If it were possible to amend those schemes after they once left the Commissoners' office, much delay must necessarily be incurred. He did trust that if Parliament saw anything to object to in the scheme, they would take steps for its amendment, instead of carrying the proposal to reject the scheme in its entirety; for to take such a course would be to throw doubts upon the operations of the Commissioners. The whole plan, with its cumbrous machinery, must be again gone through, and the whole scheme would be thrown back for at least a year.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, there were certain admissions which ought to be made with reference to the Endowed Schools Commissioners by everyone who approached the subject. In the first place, the task which the Commissioners had to discharge was one of very great difficulty and delicacy; and in the second place, he admitted that two of the Commissioners had approached the task with the most pure and single-minded intention to discharge the trust reposed in 881 them by Parliament. He further admitted that it was unfair to both the Gentlemen he had just named to bring against them, in a discussion of that kind, any expressions of opinion which might have fallen from them before they were Commissioners, and at a time when they were not pointing out what would be their course of action as Commissioners, but were simply giving utterance to their private and individual views as to the course which legislation on the subject ought to take. But of this he was perfectly certain, that when those eminent persons came to administer the trusts of that Commission, they would not allow their own private opinions to affect them at all—that they would rather think it their duty to place in abeyance their own private opinions, and endeavour to adhere to what they considered the very letter of the statute which they had to carry out. He did not mean to enter fully into the details of the various papers which had been circulated by the advocates on both sides of that question. There had probably been exaggeration on both sides; but he thought the palm of victory on that head rested entirety with the pamphlet which had emanated from the Commissioners, or had at any rate been circulated with their consent. His first objection to the scheme was this—a good deal had been said about the will of the foundress, and one noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) had said it was a mockery to suppose that the charity of Lady Dacre was intended to provide for the poor, because the word "poor" never occurred in the will. That was true, but as a Royal charter was granted at the time, in order to carry out the provisions of the will, he contended that the two documents should be construed together, and the charter expressly stated that the charity was intended "for the education of the children of the poor according to the charitable and good meaning of the said Lady Dacre." That being the case, he was alarmed to find the Commissioners claiming the right to rule that property left for the education of a particular class would be better appropriated for the education of another class, and to so appropriate it if they thought fit. He contended that that proposition was contrary to the principles of English law, and earnestly protested against the doctrine of the noble Lord opposite (Lord 882 Lyttelton) that charitable grants were merely as such, public property. There was nothing in the Act of 1869, according to his reading of it, which gave the Commissioners power to divert the endowments in the manner proposed. The Preamble of the Act of Parliament stated that—
The Commissioners have made their Report, and thereby recommended various changes with the object of carrying into effect the main designs of the founders, by puting a liberal education within the reach of the children of all classes,and so on. Taking even the words on which the noble Lord intended to rely, he (Lord Cairns) maintained that "a liberal education" was not placed within the reach of all classes, by taking away a fund intended for the education of one class and applying it to the education of another class. Yet that was the very thing the Commissioners were doing. The whole tenor of the noble Lord's speech was to the effect that in respect to education, it was better to assist the middle classes than to assist the poor. The noble Lord had pointed out that the Commissioners had, after all, provided free exhibitions for children educated in primary schools in Westminster; but he forgot to mention the alternative. What the Commissioners proposed was that there should be free exhibitions for children educated in the primary schools of Westminster, or whose parents resided in Westminster. Thus, parents who would never have dreamt of sending their child to a primary school in Westminster might, if they could cram him sufficiently for the purpose, send him to compete for one of these free exhibitions which, according to the noble Lord, were intended for the poor. His (Lord Cairns') next objection had reference to the Governing Body. He did not for a moment recognize any right of the Corporation of the City of Loudon to be the trustees of the endowment. They were selected by Queen Elizabeth to manage the trust; but, although he believed they had discharged that duty very well, they had no vested right in the charity, and the Commissioners were empowered to appoint other trustees. As a matter of discretion and good sense, however, he thought the Commissioners might have proceeded more judiciously. Having regard to the long connection of the Corporation of the City of London with the school, he could not help thinking that 883 the sensible thing would have been to ask the Corporation to take upon themselves the responsibility of selecting or electing the trustees who were to be the Governing Body. A great deal of difficulty would have been removed, if the Corporation had acceded to such a proposal, and a better Governing Body would have been appointed than could be obtained by resorting to the principle of self-election. Then, he wholly objected to the use which the Endowed Schools Commissioners were making of the Primary Education Act of last year. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had most tersely and neatly remarked that the Act of 1870 found a certain vacuum in primary education, and threw upon the people of the country at large the duty of filling it up. He (Lord Cairns) objected, however, to the Commissioners making that vacuum larger than it was last year, by taking away sources of primary education which then existed. The proposed scheme would, in his opinion, introduce the principle of competitive examination for the free exhibitions in the schools, without any limit as to age, so that any child who, by the process of cramming, could show its superiority to other children of the same age would be entitled to be elected. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had, indeed, expressed a doubt whether that was the real meaning of the scheme; but in his (Lord Cairns') judgment there could be no doubt on the subject. Though he would speak with great possible respect of competitive examination, he feared that in that country they were drifting much too rapidly into a perpetual and chronic system of competitive examination. At all events, it was most unsuitable as a means of introduction to an elementary school. Imagine a consumptive hospital established on the principle that those applicants should be most eligible for admission whose lungs were in the most healthy state. Well, a school was, after all, an establishment for curing ignorance; and yet, in the present instance, the pupils who were to be admitted were those who were the least ignorant. It might be urged that many schoolmasters were in favour of competitive examination; but, speaking with all due respect for schoolmasters, he maintained they were the very worst judges on that point. If he were a schoolmaster he would say—"By all 884 means let every boy who enters my school come in by competitive examination. That will secure to me all the clever boys, while all the dunces will be kept out." He said again, therefore, that schoolmasters, instead of being the best persons to form an opinion on that subject, were the very worst. These were the objections which he took to that scheme. He thought that their Lordships' attention ought to be called to the words in that Act: That the House of Lords and the House of Commons should have the opportunity before they assented to a scheme of that kind to pass under review objections to it. He had now stated the objections that would prevent his voting for the scheme, and he declined to trust to the scheme being ratified by any authority short of their Lordships' House.
§ LORD LAWRENCE, as one who took the deepest interest in the education of the lower classes in London, sincerely hoped and trusted that the Motion now under their Lordships' consideration would not be successful. He believed that a large majority of the gentlemen who formed the present London School Board would unhesitatingly declare that the proposal of the Commissioners would give a great impulse, and would prove a great incentive, to the primary education of the poorer classes generally. He was sure that the majority of the parents of those children who attended primary schools would highly approve the propositions of the Commissioners, on the ground that they offered a great opening for their children. These poor people themselves would say that the scheme of the Commissioners would be a great benefit to their children, and that under that scheme the children of parents who lived in Westminster had a distinct advantage over those of other parishes; but the most important point of all for consideration was that encouragement would be given to the industrious, farsighted, and frugal parents, who had made some sacrifice in order to educate their families, over the lazy and drunken parents who had neglected theirs. Then, again, the large number of the exhibitions that were offered would produce a greater interest in the subject. Much had been said about the evil effects of competition; but his experience led him to believe that all the advantages were not always secured by the children of 885 the richer classes. The money that would procure a first-rate education was doubtless a great help; but very often it was expended on children who had the least aptitude and energy, and were beaten by poorer but cleverer and more zealous ones. Competition might be truly said to be a leaven which would leaven the whole Mass of society. The results of competition were not limited to those who directly gained by it, for all the children were influenced, though only five or ten gained the prizes; and he was convinced that in the long run competition would be of the greatest benefit to the whole system of education.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONMy Lords, the issue that has been raised by the Motion of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) is so important that it is impossible for me, holding the office which I do, not to state my views upon the question now under the consideration of your Lordships. The issue that has been placed before you does not relate solely to Emanuel Hospital; because the noble Marquess opposite, with that courage for which he is so remarkable, placed the issue on the right ground, when he asked your Lordships to assert in the Address a principle which went to the foundation of the Act of 1869, it is one and which if your Lordships were to agree to it, would have the effect of practically repealing by the vote of one House of Parliament the legislation of two years ago. Your Lordships, I am sure, will not fail to observe that the Motion does not simply disapprove the scheme for Emanuel Hospital, but objects altogether to the principle that gratuitous education shall be given for merit, and alleges that the present Governing Body ought not to be interfered with, unless neglect in some shape or other can be proved on their part. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess in his speech endeavoured to convince your Lordships that there was something in the scheme of the Commissioners which was radically inconsistent with the understanding on which the Act of 1869 was passed; whereas, I venture to say, in contradiction to the noble Marquess's argument, that the fact is, that during the passage of the Act through Parliament, it was most distinctly advocated that the principle of indiscriminate gratuitous education was a thoroughly unsound one; and it was stated that the 886 Government intended to remodel the Governing Bodies of schools without requiring that misconduct should be proved against them. I have to-day looked through the speech I had the honour to address to your Lordships on that occasion, and I say that it was then laid down beyond all dispute that that was the principle laid down by the Government. The intentions of those who introduced and supported the Bill were unequivocally placed before both Houses of Parliament, and I assert that nothing can be clearer than the opinions stated in the Report on which the measure was founded. There is no doubt, my Lords, that disingenuous efforts have been made to misrepresent the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and I am sure it is from mere inadvertence that many names have been attached to the statement that has been issued by the Corporation of the City of London. I am not here, my Lords, to criticize the conduct of the Corporation of the City of London in the management of this charity, Emanuel Hospital; but I have at least a right to say—and the document has certainly been drawn up by a most ingenious gentleman—that no one can possibly read that document without being aware of the misrepresentations it contains in reference to two important questions that came before the Commission. It has been said that that Commission thought that Corporations were the best bodies to be entrusted with the administration and the management of schools, and that this scheme as to Emanuel Hospital has been prepared in the teeth of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission; but, my Lords, the fact is that those Commissioners have distinctly said that they thought it very objectionable that such bodies should be intrusted with such duties, and their opinion is in favour of special bodies being chosen for the distinct purpose. Therefore, what I would desire to impress upon your Lordships is this—you are invited by the noble Marquess opposite to lay down principles which are, as I believe, inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1869, and which most certainly are equally inconsistent with the intentions with which that Act was passed. Precisely the same proposition as that which is contained in the latter portion of the 887 Address of the noble Marquess has been laid before the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat to inquire into this subject, and it was rejected by a majority of 18 to 2—the majority including several well-known Members of the Conservative party. That, therefore, is the view of the matter taken by at least some eminent. Members of that party. So that, my Lords, my noble Friend can hardly say that in the course which the Commissioners have pursued, they have not been going upon the understanding which existed in Parliament when that Act was passed. I am, therefore, prepared to maintain that the Address of the noble Marquess is inconsistent with the Resolution of the House of Commons' Committee and with the understanding that prevailed when the Act of 1869 passed. I observed that the noble Marquess, although he quoted from a speech of my noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton), abstained from quoting anything which fell from me, and I must therefore conclude that he was unable to find anything that was uttered by me at that time which made for his case; but he did say that in the course of the debate I had said that this and that had been settled in Select Committee, and that it was undesirable to alter it; I did say so, and I say so now. I say to my noble Friend that the speech which he has made to-night is inconsistent with the Resolutions of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and with the understanding that existed when the Act of 1869 passed. I have shown it, I have proved it, and I have referred to the well-known Members of the Conservative party who voted on the occasion in question. Now, my Lords, I can very well understand the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) voting for the bare Resolution against this scheme; but I must own that it is difficult to understand how he can vote for the principles that are contained in this Address. I confess that I am utterly unable to understand it. The present scheme appears to me to be the complement of the Act, and if your Lordships are pleased to reject it on the grounds put forward by the noble Marquess in his Address, a complete stop will be put to the work of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. My Lords, that appears to me to be a very grave 888 and serious thing to do. The noble Marquess has on his side on this question of giving gratuitous education to the poor, his own very authority, besides that of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) and that of the Corporation of the City of London. But then, my Lords, we have to set against this system of patronage and gratuitous education the authority of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners—we have the authority of 300 gentlemen connected with the best schools in England—we have the authority of the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) who has just spoken not only as one who has given considerable attention to educational questions, but as the mouthpiece of the School Board of London, and who has laid before your Lordships the views of that great representative council as to the mode in which a scheme such as that now proposed would benefit primary education, and would consequently benefit the poor in the Metropolis. I say, my Lords, that if you want anything in support of the argument which I venture to address to your Lordships, and in answer to the speech of my noble Friend opposite, you will find it in the remarks which have fallen from my noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) who has just sat down. I, for my part, certainly do not think there could be found in this country a set of men of greater weight in reference to education than those gentlemen to whom I have referred. What the Corporation of the City of London ask your Lordships to do is this—to affirm the principle that it would be robbing the poor to take away from irresponsible trustees the power of giving the 64 nominees positions in the school, in favour of the scheme that would give a great impetus to education. A school managed under a system of patronage must, I contend, from its very nature, possess less energy than if a spirit of competition were infused into the pupils, and its efforts must of necessity become stagnant and cold. Under the proposed scheme, instead of the poor merely deriving such benefit from these foundations as is represented by 64 nominations, the large primary schools at Westminster will have the advantage of being connected with a system which would give education to 900 children. What is the benefit of educating 64 children compared with that of a scheme which will educate 900 children, and will 889 also place them in direct communication with the primary schools? In my humble opinion, the stimulus that would be thus given to primary education would be of more advantage than any amount of patronage to the children of the poor. My Lords, I will not trespass on your Lordships' attention at greater length; I will only say, in conclusion, that this is in no sense a party question, and I appeal confidently to noble Lords on both sides of the House not to reject the scheme now under discussion. The present Motion cuts directly at the root of the Act of 1869, and if it were passed it would be impossible to apply the Act in accordance with the Report of the School Commissioners, which is the avowed basis of the Act of 1869. In that Act there is a provision enabling either House of Parliament to interpose and stop the progress of any scheme framed under it. But it seems to me that your Lordships are now invited by this Motion to take upon yourselves a very grave responsibility, and to go in the teeth of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners, to go in the teeth of the first teachers in this country, to go in the teeth of the London School Board, and of all the authorities who have made this question almost the study of their lives. My Lords, it is my conviction that the Motion of the noble Marquess would strike a serious and disastrous blow at the progress of education in this country, and I do most earnestly trust that your Lordships will refuse to sanction it.
EARL NELSONMy Lords, it is impossible for me to give a silent vote upon the Motion which has been brought before your Lordships by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) without stating my reasons for supporting it. It is my intention to vote for the Resolution which has been moved by the noble Marquess, upon the ground that these endowments have been left for the benefit of the poor; and I object to the scheme which has been propounded by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, because it diverts a large portion of the endowments of Emanuel Hospital from the education of the poor, and I do not think that the scheme deals with them in such a fair and liberal spirit as it should do. Now, my Lords, I entirely admit that to use such endowments as these with a view of saving the rates is a wrong mode of employing endowments 890 which have been left by their founders for the benefit of education; but, then, my Lords, I venture to maintain that these endowments were meant for the benefit of the poorer class, and I must say that I do not think that the scheme which is now before your Lordships deals with that class of the population of this country in as full and liberal a manner as it ought to do. According to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners there will not be entirely free scholarships for more than 10 in every 100 scholars. It is not contemplated or intended that the new schools should have a larger number than 900 scholars, and under the proposed scheme there will be more than 90 scholarships for the benefit of those children who have been educated in their elementary schools. It is at the present time a reproach to some of our great schools that the poorer classes do not derive the benefit that was originally intended for them. And, my Lords, I do not think it at all proper that examples of that kind should be increased. In my humble opinion a better education than that which is given at the present time in elementary schools ought to be put within the reach of the poorer classes, who ought also to have the means of acquiring a technical education, and of thus preparing themselves for admission to the higher schools of the country. I think that that should be secured to them in order that they might have a chance afforded them of rising in the social scale. Well, now, my Lords, it certainly does occur to me, as I stated just now, that this proposed scheme of the Endowed School Commissioners, however well it may sound at first, will really in a very short time do for these few schools which are to be started in Westminster the very same thing that has happened in our great schools of Eton and Westminster and Winchester. It is a reproach against those schools that, although the education to be bestowed there was originally intended for the poorer people, yet that the expenses connected with those schools have been raised in such a manner that the poorer classes never can derive any benefit from them. My Lords, I have the sincerest desire to improve the education of that class of the people by competitive examinations, and by giving them a higher education than they can by any means 891 get from the proposed schools. That is my earnest desire, and I really do believe that under this scheme yon will injure and impair these endowments, and take the benefit of them away from that very class that ought to be the first to receive benefit from them. For what, my Lords, is the case at the present time? Is it not this lower class of our people that are at present doing their utmost to rise in the social scale? And are we not bound to assist them in that object, and is it not wise of us that they should be so assisted? I really do think, my Lords, that the poor deserve the chance of a better education—an education which a scheme of this sort, if properly managed, might give them.
§ On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 64; Not-Contents 56: Majority 8.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
892| CONTENTS. | |
| Beaufort, D. | Bagot, L. |
| Buckingham and Chandos, D. | Blayney, L. |
| Bolton, L. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Boston, L. |
| Richmond, D. | Buckhurst, L. |
| Rutland, D. | Cairns, L. |
| Chelmsford, L. | |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) | Churston, L. |
| Colchester, L. | |
| Salisbury, M. [Teller.] | Colonsay, L. |
| Delamere, L. | |
| Bantry, E. | De Saumarez, L. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Egerton, L. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Elphinstone, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Grantley, L. |
| Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.) | |
| Eldon, E. | Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) |
| Feversham, E. | |
| Home, E. | Headley, L. |
| Lanesborough, E. | Heytesbury, L. |
| Lauderdale, E. | Houghton, L. |
| Nelson, E. | Hylton, L. |
| Powis, E. | Kesteven, L. |
| Rosse, E. | Northwick, L. |
| Tankerville, E. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Verulam, E. | |
| Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.) | |
| De Vesci, V. | |
| Hawarden, V. | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | |
| Sinclair, L. | |
| Melville, V. | Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.] |
| Hereford, Bp. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Sondes, L. | Thurlow, L. |
| Stanley of Alderley, L. | Tredegar, L. |
| Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) | Wynford, L. |
| Zouche of Haryngworth, L. | |
| Stratheden, L. | |
| Talbot de Malahide, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Calthorpe, L. |
| Camoys, L. | |
| Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.) | |
| Cleveland, D. | |
| Saint Albans, D. [Teller.] | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. |
| Congleton, L. | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Crewe, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | De Tabley, L. |
| Ripon, M. | Dinevor, L. |
| Westminster, M. | Gwydir, L. |
| Lawrence, L. | |
| Camperdown, E. | Leigh, L. |
| Chichester, E. | Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.) |
| Cowper, E. | |
| Devon, E. | Lurgan, L. |
| Ducie, E. | Lyttelton, L. |
| Granville, E. | Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) |
| Grey, E. | Methuen, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Mostyn, L. |
| Northbrook, L. | |
| Halifax, V. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Powerscourt, V. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Sydney, V. | |
| Torrington, V. | Robartes, L. |
| Romilly, L. | |
| Bangor, Bp. | Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) |
| Carlisle, Bp. | |
| Exeter, Bp. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Oxford, Bp. | Seaton, L. |
| Ripon, Bp. | Suffield, L. |
| St. David's, Bp. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) |
| Belper, L. | Truro, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] | Wrottesley, L. |