Lords Sitting of 10 May 1887

MINUTES."
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Crofters Holdings (Scotland) * (90); Dog Owners * (91).
Second Reading—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites) (76).
Report—Customs Consolidation Act (1876) Amendment* (71).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education (Christchurch) * (92); Elementary Education(Middleton St. George) * (93); Elementary Education (London) * (94); Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin, &c.)* (95).
Third Reading—Local Government * (70), and passed.

BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
(The Lord Henniker.)
(NO. 76.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Henniker.)
LORD HERSCHELLsuggested that a Petition having been presented against the Bill it should be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD HENNIKERsaid, the First Commissioner of Works had no objection whatever, although the time had expired for presenting Petitions, to allow the Petition to go to the Select Committee. The Bill was a hybrid one, and as there was already a Petition against it, it would go, as a matter of course, before a Select Committee. He might mention that there was an agreement between the Office of Works and Clement's Inn with respect to a footway to take the place of the one to be moved. This agreement would be considered as honourably binding on the Government; but if it was desired, the First Commissioner had no objection to insert a clause in the
1434
Bill to carry out the agreement. Perhaps this statement might meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)pointed out that the Committee could not be appointed before Whitsuntide. As to the Petition, he thought the proper course would be to give Notice for Thursday that Standing Order No. 93 should be considered with the view of its being suspended in order to admit the Petition being received.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AND AMENDING ACTS (ARCHBISHOP HOLGATE'S GRAMMAR SCHOOL AT HEMSWORTH).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in rising to move—
  "That an himble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales for the management of the Free Grammar School founded by Archbishop Holgate in the parish of Hemsworth in the county of York, the Hospital founded by Archbishop Holgate in the above-named parish of Hemsworth commonly known as Hemsworth Hospital, the Grammar School founded by Thomas Keresford in the borough of Barnsley in the county of York, and of the endowment attached to the last-named grammar school, and the gift of Phœbe Locke, so far as such Scheme affects the said grammar school and hospital at Hemsworth, and which Scheme is now lying on the Table of the House pursuant to the Endowed Schools Acts of 1869 and Amending Acts,"
  said, he presented Petitions from the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who had signed to the number of 3,482 persons, from the rural clergy, from the Board of Guardians, and from the Rural Sanitary Authority at Hemsworth and the Poor Law Union against the scheme of the Charity Commissioners. Those Petitions, he thought, fairly represented the public opinion of the whole locality against the scheme. In moving his Resolution, he submitted that the facts of the case were somewhat complicated by a Memorial from the Department dated 3rd May, 1867, in which the position of the Department was strongly described, but he thought more strongly than accurately. In the first place, they were told that the Commissioners were

  1435
  encouraged to take the course which they had taken with respect to this foundation by the patron and visitors, the Lord Archbishop of York and the trustees. The school of Hemsworth was in the year 1879 in considerable straits. They had the misfortune which might happen to any school—that of having a master who was somewhat supine, and the governors decided to get rid of him. They took such steps as they were advised, but it proved impossible to remove him, unless some charge of immorality or misbehaviour was preferred against him. In other words, it was not enough that the duties were imperfectly performed; there must be some specific charge which would justify the removal. At that time, no doubt, there was an opinion, the population being somewhat small and the difficulties of the school in the past having been considerable, that some other site might be found, or that it might be united with some other foundation. But an expressed opinion at that time in the early stages ought not in their view to be now binding. He ventured to hold that it was the publication of the scheme which drew forth that public opinion which enabled a right decision to be arrived at; and when the Commissioners complained that they were led by the preliminary opinion of the trustees and the visitors into what they seemed to regard as a false position, they ought also to remember that the publication of the scheme was not a final act, but rather a preliminary and first step towards ascertaining the opinion of the locality. Of the opinion of the locality there could not be the slightest doubt, as the Petitions laid upon the Table covered the whole ground. "With regard to the reference which has been made to himself, he did not believe ho was a visitor, and he was only patron in a very limited sense. In 1857, according to his reading of the Act, the office of visitor was done away with by ordering that the trustees should appoint a committee to visit the foundation and report to thorn. That took away the visitorial power from the Archbishop of York, which power had never been restored. Under the scheme of the Court of Chancery of 1861 it was provided that the Archbishop should be the patron to appoint the Head Master, provided he
  1436
  did it within 20 days, but it was impossible to exercise that patronage under those conditions; therefore, virtually, the patronage was taken away from the Archbishop, hence his connection with the hospital was of the slightest description. But not only was he made responsible by the trustees in their statement, but he found it was alleged that what he had written on the subject tended to raise a religious difficulty. He denied that that construction was to be put upon anything he had written. The only point he had wished to raise was whether an endowed school of this kind could be properly dealt with by being removed to another site. The only question he wished to place before their Lordships was that here was an endowment of the net value of £450. It was an endowment of a high school among a population of about 20,000, which was largely increasing. The history of Barnsley for the last 50 or 60 years showed how the population had increased, and it was possible that Hemsworth would largely develop in the near future, its mines being by no means exhausted. He might instance the case of Middlesborough, situate at the north edge of Yorkshire, which was a few years ago a mere village, but now a large borough, returning a Member to Parliament and having a Municipal Corporation, and all the elements of civic life. He contended that before this endowment was irrevocably diverted they should consider that the time might come, and in the next 20 years, when Hemsworth, like Middlesbrough, would become a large and thriving place, and require this money for its own educational purposes. This £450 a-year it was now proposed to take to Barnsley, to which place, owing to the defective railway accommodation, there was considerable difficulty for the school children of Hemsworth to get to. He really was at a loss to find any reason for this removal. It was not only a question of geography, but it was to some extent a matter of sentiment, for Barnsley was in another diocese, and he protested against a school founded by one of his Predecessors being transferred to another diocese without some valid reason. He pleaded for a suspension of operations in regard to this foundation, submitting that in course of time the trustees would be able to establish an efficient school,

  1437
  and that in making their demand they wore asking nothing that was not reasonable and wise. They asked for two years to set their house in order, and they wished for permission to establish scholarships and endowments as an encouragement to the school. The Commissioners refused that and threatened the institution, which fact, he reminded their Lordships, was bound to have a bad effect on the school. The most rev. Prelate concluded by submitting the Motion of which ho had given Notice.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in seconding the Motion, said, that he had examined into this matter in all its bearings on the spot. Ho considered that the scheme propounded by the Charity Commissioners in this case was needless, unwise, and unjust. The neighbourhood was a growing one; it had doubled within the last 10 years, and would be doubled again in the next 10 years. The scheme would take away from this rising neighbourhood the very thing which it needed—a good secondary school. They were now being called upon to sweep away every intention of the original founder, although the reasons for which it had been created were five times as strong as they had then been, and to transfer it to a manufacturing town eight miles off, which had no facilities of access, and which had not even asked for it. There were sufficient educational facilities at present existing in Barnsley, and he could not conceive a place more unfitted for the transfer of such a foundation as that under consideration. The income also of the school was almost entirely derived from the surrounding people. The sum of £300 a-year had been given for a certain length of time, after which the question was to be reconsidered. As the whole income of the school was only about £500 a-year, he thought that they might at all events wait until that time came if anything had to be done. The scheme had only been settled 20 years ago; it had been practically revised 10 years ago, and it was now proposed to revise it again. He admitted that it was within the legal power of the Charity Commissioners to frame a scheme which took away the benefits of the charity from the district to which it had originally been granted; but the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Endowed Schools, which
  1438
  had just been published, had recommended that these provisions should only be applied in cases whore population was decreasing, and where, therefore, the need for any such accommodation was likely to lessen rather than to increase. In the present instance exactly the converse was the case, as the neighbourhood was a rising one, and there was a large amount of property which was being farther developed. The school also met the wants of a class of parents who wished for something better than the national schools for their children, and could not afford the expense of a public school. If this scheme were adopted the Hemsworth school building, which had cost £5,000, would be a White Elephant, for it was incapable of being turned into cottages, and it was unsaleable for residential purposes. The scheme unsettled everything, and settled nothing. A great deal more good might be achieved by leaving matters as they were. He hoped that in deciding this question their Lordships would not be guided by any Party question, but follow their own judgment.
  Moved, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales for the management of the Free Grammar School founded by Archbishop Holgate in the parish of Hemsworth, in the county of York, the Hospital founded by Archbishop Holgate in the above-named parish of Hemsworth commonly known as Hemsworth Hospital, the Grammar School founded by Thomas Keresford in the Borough of Bamsley in the county of York, and of the endowment attached to the last-named grammar school, and the gift of Phœbo Locke, so far as such Scheme affects the said grammar school and hospital at Hemsworth, and which Scheme is now lying on the Table of the House pursuant to the Endowed School Act of 1869 and Amending Acts."—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he entirely sympathized with the last sentence of the noble Lord, and sincerely trusted that their Lordships would carefully weigh and consider all the arguments that might be adduced for and against the proposal of the most rev. Prelate. This scheme, after passing through its various stages, had been submitted, in due course to the Education Committee of the Privy Council last summer. It had come before him as Lord President of the Council, and after carefully going through it he had signed his approval. Subsequently various Memorials were

  1439
  presented to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, drawing attention to the legal aspects of the case. The case was disposed of by the Judicial Committee, who had given their opinion in favour of the promoters of the scheme. It had then come before Her Majesty in Council, and had been laid on the Table of the House. Ho believed that their Lordships had all read the clear statement submitted to them from the Charity Commissioners, and also the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He did not wish to go through these arguments at any length, but he would like shortly to explain why he had thought it right to give his approval to the scheme. It had been shown on most conclusive evidence that this school, which had been founded in the Reign of Henry VIII., had been, certainly in recent years, a failure. It was to be noted that the words of the original Charter, granted in 1548, stated the object to be the encouragement of education in England, but there was no mention of any special locality in which this was to be done. Schools, however, wore established, a grammar school in Hemsworth, and elementary schools in surrounding villages, each of which received about £40 a-year towards its elementary school. With regard to the grammar school there was a long chain of evidence showing how entirely it had failed. In 1828 Lord Brougham's Commission pointed out that it did not appear that the school had been carried on with success, and that there was not a sufficient number of boys in the neighbourhood who required a classical education to make the school a success. Lord Taunton's Commission, in 1865, reported very much to the same effect. In these villages, the Report said, no day scholars could be expected who required a classical instruction, or more than an elementary education. In 1878 one of the Assistant Commissioners of the Charity Commission, Mr. Fearon, now the Secretary, wont down to make an inquiry, and ho came to the conclusion that it was of little or no use to maintain the school at Hemsworth. "No day scholars can be expected to avail themselves of the classical instruction." The Commissioners before this had been opposed to the moving of the school, but after learning the result of this inquiry they came to the conclusion that they
  1440
  ought to exercise their undoubted power and remove the school to some other locality. They accordingly invited the attention of the trustees and patrons to this point. The most rev. Prelate then wrote a letter, dated April 10, 1879, in which he said—
  "In my judgment the grammar school is not much needed in its present position, and I fear that so long as it remains at Hemsworth it will languish."
  The trustees, however, asked for some delay, to give the school a fair trial under the new head master, and to this the Commissioners agreed, and a delay of two years was allowed. After this further trial, the head master himself wrote saying that he did not think that the school could succeed. Further correspondence took place between the trustees and the Commissioners, in which the trustees, while practically agreeing to the removal, made certain stipulations—that the town to which the school was removed should find £5,000, that the head master should be provided for, and other small matters of this kind. All these points had been met by the Commissioners, but the trustees were not satisfied. Since then, a Committee of the House of Commons had inquired into the whole matter, and, after hearing all the evidence against the scheme, they approved the scheme, without even calling upon the Charity Commission to support it. It was said that Barnsley was a dirty, smoky town, but that surely was no reason why it should be denied the advantages of a grammar school. If the school were established in a rural district like Hemsworth, enormous expenditure would have to be incurred in the erection of boarding-houses for the scholars. The scheme had been approved by a Committee of the House of Commons, on which two Vice Presidents of the Council, Sir Lyon Play fair and Sir Henry Holland, served. It would be a serious disaster if the idea should go forth that the scheme was opposed on grounds of religious difference. In the interests of the Church of England itself it was greatly to be hoped that nothing approaching to sectarian acrimony would be caused in connection with the matter before their Lordships. He earnestly trusted that the House would not agree to the Memorial presented by the most rev. Prelate.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he objected to the scheme on the ground that neither the founder's wishes nor the wishes of the locality had been regarded. In Hemsworth itself and the neighbourhood there was absolute unanimity in opposition to the scheme. Even the head master, Mr. Butler, might be considered an opponent of the scheme, as his objection in 1881 to the school remaining at Hemsworth was solely based on the absence of scholarships which the Charity Commissioners refused to found in the old school, but founded further now ones. Hemsworth was admirably suited, according to the testimony of a late master of Malvern College, and other competent authorities, to be the site of a school of this character. It was the centre of a growing district of over 20,000 inhabitants, and was certainly a much better place than "Black Barnsley," as that town had always been called. The climate was good, and Hemsworth and its neighbourhood were an oasis amid the surrounding blackness. The scheme had been very imperfectly advertised, and was but little known in the district. It was not the case that the opponents of the scheme wished the school to be reduced to the level of an elementary school. But it would do good service as a middle or second grade school, though it could not be expected to compete with the great public schools. The paper which had been circulated a few days ago was full of misstatements and suppressions most discreditable to whoever had drawn and issued it. It first suppresses the fact that the Archbishop of York had, so far back as 1881, objected to the removal of the school, and said that he should be particularly unwilling to have it removed out of the diocese. It represents the trustees as having been willing at first to have it removed. They had never voted anything of the kind, but only that if it was to be removed (which they supposed the Commissioners to have power to do) it should not be removed to Barnsley but to Pontefract, therefore the Commissioners were not justified in saying that they were encouraged either by the patron or by the trustees to go on with the scheme for the i removal of the school; and the statements which had been put forth on that subject were misleading. Mr. Fearon was evidently very anxious to prove that the
  1442
  school was a failure; and how did he try to make that out? He gave the results of his inquiries during two visits, on both of which ho found that there were very few boys at the school. But when was that? The latest of those occasions was in 1878, and in 1886 that gentleman made an affidavit for the information of the Privy Council; but he did not tell them what had happened since 1878, when the new master came to the school. How could the school be said to have failed? Reference had been made to the House of Commons Committee of last year, which was said to have been satisfied of the goodness of the scheme. Mr. Fearon had given evidence, and two of the Commissioners had also done so, and had said all that they wanted to say about the school. Sir George Young said that there were two, and perhaps only two, classes of cases where the removal of a school ought to be persisted in in spite of opposition, one of them being where the school sought to be removed had been a failure where it stood, and was proved to be so by a long-continued experience, and not only by what it was eight years ago under a different master; and the other was where it was not fulfilling the desire of the founder, and where they did not see their way in the same place to turn it into anything that would do good upon the principle upon which they acted in such matters. Another of the Commissioners gave evidence that a complete change of locality was very rare, and that, in fact, the circumstances would have to be very strong to justify it. The paper of reasons suppresses another letter from the Archbishop in 1883, a considerable time before the scheme was published, which only means circulated. It was not true that the Commissioners had entered into engagements of any kind with Barnsley before then, as the paper asserted. Pointing out further inaccuracies in the statements put forward in support of the scheme, the noble Lord asked how it could be said that that school had failed? It had been built for 40 boys, and a year ago there were 37 boys in it. The numbers were stated to have fallen, and the noble Lord below (Lord Middleton) had given a very sufficient reason for it in the unsettled state of things caused by the Commissioners;

  1443
  the school was as good as it was intended or expected to be. The noble Earl had referred to the school as it was 60 years ago, and had also read another report about its state 23 years ago; and that was the way in which it was sought to show that it was a failure now. Ho contended that the school was not a failure, and that the Commissioners had not made out a case. Hemsworth had a moral right to the school remaining where it was, and it should not be taken away. The compensation professed to be given by scholarships at other places is no real compensation to inhabitants of that neighbourhood. He would only add, that he concurred with the views of the most rev. Prelate, and hoped that their Lordships would agree to the Address.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he came first to the consideration of this case with a mind quite open, and, perhaps, he should say with a feeling against the unnecessary removal of a school from the place in which it was originally founded. But the more he looked into the matter the more satisfied did he become that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) "was right in the statement he made in 1879 that the school was not likely to answer in the place in which it existed. When removal was spoken of it had to be borne in mind that this was not a removal in the ordinary sense of the term. It was the removal of a school to a place in the immediate neighbourhood, and so far as the district generally was considered, the proposed place to which the school was to be removed was a better locality than Hemsworth. Royston contained about half the population of the district, and was nearer to Barnsley than was Hemsworth. To make the school successful, it was necessary that a certain amount of money should be spent on it, and no one supposed that Hemsworth could supply that money. It was said that there were 37 boys attending the school at one time. He found, on the contrary, that on May 4 the entire number was 22 scholars, three of whom were boarders and 13 paying scholars, only five of the boys belonging to Hemsworth. No doubt, when Archbishop Holgate founded the three schools in different parts of Yorkshire he had ambitious ideas, and believed that they
  1444
  would grow up to much larger institutions, but that had not been the case at Hemsworth. In a district of such a kind it was not to be expected that the class of school provided would succeed. In 1881 the trustees themselves were prepared, subject to a satisfactory provision being made to preserve the interests of the parishes concerned, to consent to the removal of the school. All the conditions which they laid down had been fulfilled by the Charity Commission, and the only question was as to the difference between Barnsley and Pontefract. He was not going to argue that Pontefract was not a much pleasanter place than Barnsley; but Pontefract was, if anything, a declining place; while Barnsley was swarming with a thronging and increasing population of some 80,000 people. No doubt the people there were subject to all the influences of a crowded population in a smoky atmosphere; but, while admitting that, he did not see that there was the less necessity to encourage the languishing grammar school there. If the school remained at Hemsworth, a large sum would have to be raised, as was admitted by the main advocate of the present site, and must come out of and bring very low the endownments, whereas at Barnsley the needful money was to be provided and buildings secured. Anything objectionable in the shape of cottages too near was to be removed, and two endowments which at present existed at Barnsley were to be given to the school. He was surprised to hear a noble Lord say that Barnsley was well supplied with schools, because that was not the case. It was said, however, that Barnsley had not asked for the removal of the school. The Committee on Endowed Schools which inquired into the question pointed out that Barnsley had a population of 80,000 persons, and that there was a great want of provision for higher education. The Charity Commissioners had made no secret of their intentions since 1879, nor had there been a word to lead anyone to suppose that Mr. Fearon had misled those interested. In 1879 the case was practically given up for Hemsworth as a place suited for the kind of school wanted. A grammar school in the midst of that population was unsuited to the condition of the people. On the other hand, they had in their power the means of benefiting

  1445
  the large population of Parsley. The most rev. Prelate very lately contemplated removal, as he spoke of other languishing schools needing aid. By adopting the scheme of the Commissioners, they were acting in accordance with the wishes of the founder, and were also increasing the capabilities for usefulness of the institution. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would concur with him in the opinion which the Charity Commissioners had come to, and in regard to which he himself had come to the same conclusion as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), and two different Vice Presidents of the Council—namely, that the scheme ought to be confirmed.
  LORD ST. OSWALD, as one of the trustees of the school, said, the trustees were all against the removal of the school to Barnsley. They considered Hemsworth was the place where the school ought to be, and that, even if there had not been occasions for it in 1879, there was ample occasion for it now. The population of Hemsworth had increased enormously, and was still increasing, and it would be a great injustice to take the school away. No doubt, in past years, the school had not come up to the expectations formed of it; but in future years there would be a better system of management. The inhabitants of the parish were absolutely and unanimously against its removal. He admitted it was true that the school had gone down in attendance last year; but the sole reason for that, as told him the other day by the headmaster, Mr. Butler, was the circulation of a report that the school was going to be removed to Barnsley. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the House would not sanction the scheme.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that, before touching upon the principles involved in this question, he must take occasion to protest most emphatically against the attack made by the noble Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) on Mr. Fearon, who was one of the most useful men in the Public Service. He thought that very often the spirit of the original intention of a founder was best carried out by not adhering too rigidly to the letter of his instructions when circumstances had changed. In order to carry
  1446
  out their great object, founders of institutions had sometimes insisted on some minor point which, in altered circumstances, interfered with the carrying out of their intentions. It would not be fair to reject this scheme, except for exceptional reasons, which in the present case had not been shown. No scheme had been rejected since 1874, except one withdrawn by the Education Department. Ho thought the power of rejection should only be used whore a broad principle was marked out, on the ground of a number of local details which the majority of the House could hardly pronounce upon. He trusted, therefore, that the House would take the advice of the noble Viscount the President of the Council and reject the Motion of the most rev. Prelate.
  LOUD DENMAN (who had some difficulty in obtaining a hearing)said: The Archbishop, being a native of Hems-worth, would never have wished students to go to Barnsley (seven miles off) even if a railway went the whole distance. He would have desired that they should have the best education that an educated man could give them, near their own home, As the House wished to "Divide," the sooner their Lordships did so the better.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 61: Majority 23.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Archp.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Bristol, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Denman, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Devon, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Morton, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Powis, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Grimthorpe, L. [Teller.]

  Halifax, V.

  Hillingdon, L

  Powerscourt, V.

  Londesborough, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Lyveden, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Saint Oswald, L. [Teller.]

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Wynford, L.

  1447

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colchester, L.

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President)

  De Mauley, D.

  de Ros, L.

  Cadogan, E.(L. Privy Seal.)

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Bedford, D.

  Grafton, D.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Marlborough, D.

  Harris, L.

  Hartismere, L, (L. Henniker.)

  Ripon, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Herschell, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Derby, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lyttleton, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monk-Bretton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Northington, L, (L. Henley.)

  Oxenbridge, V.

  O'Neill, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Poltimore, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Preston, L.

  Belper, L.

  Thring, L.

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

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the negative.

CREMATION.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD FORBES, in moving for a Return of the number of cremations that had taken place in England within the last five years, and asking by what authority and under what regulations they were permitted, said, that this question was of importance from a social point of view, because it was necessary that precautions should be insisted upon by which any poison could be detected before a body was cremated.
  Moved, " That there be laid before this House Return of the number of cremations that have taken place in England within the last five years."—(The Lord Forbes.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the Government would have been willing to give such a Return if it
  1448
  had been in their power; it was impossible, however, for them to do so, because, as cremation was a matter of individual discretion and not an official proceeding, no records were kept, or at least none that were accessible to the Government. He did not know whether the danger referred to by the noble Lord was real or not, as he was not well informed on that matter; but he doubted whether the traces of mineral poisons would be absolutely obliterated. The practice was scarcely sufficiently common at present to call for any Parliamentary interference, and as to the information which the noble Lord desired, the Home Office were unable to supply it.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he might point out that cremation did not require any official sanction. It was perfectly legal, unless so conducted as to be a nuisance or offensive to public decency.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, the noble Lord would find that this matter had been fully discussed in a debate in the House of Commons, in the Session of 1884 or 1885, when it was proposed to legislate.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHasked the Prime Minister, Whether it would be convenient to somewhat postpone the Committee stage of the Tithe Rent-charge Bill, so as to allow a fuller consideration of the Amendments that had been put down on the Paper?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, the only other day available was Monday week, the day on which the House rose before the Queen's birthday. He might take this opportunity of stating that he had received a great number of communications with regard to the clause in the Bill which provided for the reduction of 5 per cent by the landowner, and he felt that this would in many cases inflict an injustice on the titheowner, where, for instance, the landowner now paid his own tithe, where the landowner was in occupation, and where the titheowner was in the habit of collecting the tithe himself. He, therefore, proposed to drop the clause.

  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Was presented by The Marquess of Lothian; read 1a (No. 90.)
  DOG OWNERS BILL [H.L.]
  Was presented by The Lord Mount-Temple; read 1a. (No. 91.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CHRISTCHURCH) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 92.)
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MIDDLETON ST. GEORGE) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 93.)
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 94.)
    Were presented by The Lord President; read la.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (DUBLIN, &C.) BILL [H.L.]
    Was presented by The Lord Privy Seal: read 1a. (No. 95.)
    House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.