Lords Sitting of 9 March 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision * (35).
Second Reading—Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1885, Amendment * (26).
Committee—Lunacy Acts Amendment (22).
Third Reading—County Courts Consolidation*(5), and passed.

HITCHIN FREE SCHOOL.

  MOTION FOR, AN ADDRESS.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her assent from a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, laid before this House on February 20, relating to the Hitchin Free School,"
  said, that their Lordships on more than one occasion had agreed to Addresses praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from schemes of the Charity

  687
  Commissioners, and the scheme to which he was about to call their Lordships' attention equalled in objectionable matter if it did not exceed some of the schemes which had been withdrawn. It was a scheme for transforming an endowed free school at Hitchin into a grammar school for the middle classes, and he contended that in doing so the Charity Commissioners, if they were not exceeding their legal powers, were at least departing from the instructions given to them by Parliament. The powers of the Charity Commissioners in these matters were regulated by Acts of Parliament passed in 1869 and 1873, by which it was provided that in dealing with charities of this kind the Commissioners were to have due regard for the interests of the class of persons for the benefit of whom the charity was endowed. This school was founded in 1639, and received farther subsequent endowments from other sources, and continued in that foundation until 1828. In the original endowment no limitation was made to the children of the poor; but to contemporary endowment given by friends of the founder, an express reservation was attached that the benefit of them should be given to the children of the poor. In 1828 the trustees appeared to have taken a very singular course. They made an order dismissing all the free boys from the school, and that no boy should be admitted on the foundation who was not the son of a respectable tradesman in Hitchin or in a similar rank of life. By this order the trustees admitted that up to that time the benefit of the school had been retained by the poor. There was no doubt that that action of the trustees was indefensible. If it were justifiable there would have been no necessity for him to address their Lordships. It might be said that the word "poor" was a word of art, and meant something more than was conveyed by the ordinary acceptation of the term, but no artificial meaning could be given to the word in this case, seeing that poor people in the ordinary acceptation of the term had enjoyed the benefits of this school from its foundation. If the endowments had been given subsequently to the action of the trustees in 1828, the action of the Charity Commissioners would be justified. It was sometimes said that the Act of 1870 rendered endowments of
  688
  this kind unnecessary for the education of the poor, and that therefore they might be turned to any useful purpose that Parliament might approve; but the contention of those who were favourable to the passing of the Act of 1870 was that their object was not in any way to supplant, but to supplement, the educational system. Again, it might be said, and said with truth, that Hitchin was sufficiently provided with schools for the children of the poor, seeing that there were voluntary schools for no less than 1,900 children, and that the average attendance was 1,229. This scheme was decidedly unpopular. In May, 1885, a public meeting was held, at which it was proposed by one of the trustees, and carried unanimously, that the trustees should be requested to reopen the free school as soon as practicable, and that the course of instruction should be arranged to suit the requirements of the times. Was this scheme suited to the requirements of the times? He thought that if their Lordships would look carefully into it they would come to the conclusion that it was not. By section 40 of the scheme the endowment was to be converted into an institution where boys were to be boarded whose parents could pay £45 a-year for board, together with fees of from £6 to £12 a-year for tuition. Could it be contended that such fees could be within the reach of the poor? The curriculum might mean anything or nothing, but it appeared to be quite unsuited to the education of the children of the poor. He was not disposed to deny to the children of any class the fullest access to a higher education, and he should be glad to see some scheme by which clever boys could gradually rise from one school to another, and if they distinguished themselves, could go to a University and enter the learned professions. But he did think it extremely inadvisable to give to the children of the poor generally an education which was wholly unsuited to assist them in their after life. It would not help them in the least to gain their own livelihood; but would merely add to the number of boys whose highest ambition it was to become clerks instead of devoting themselves to more useful occupations. Hitherto too much attention had been paid to the literary branch of education instead of to that training

  689
  which would fit boys for their subsequent trades and pursuits. One-half of this endowment was to go for the benefit of girls; but there was already in Hitchin a considerable foundation for the benefit of girls. This scheme really made no provision for the poor, gave by the creation of a few scholarships and the provision of a few free admissions to the grammar school. It was, however, an exceedingly costly scheme; and for the purpose of making up the necessary funds it was intended to obtain assistance from the charity known as that of John Rand. The evidence taken before the Commission on Elementary Education emphasized two points—namely, the great want of evening schools and of education in handicraft and agricultural industry. Such education would be of immense value to the children of the poor in after life. The object of the founder of John Band's charity was that boys and girls should be fitted out for trade and service. Why not respect that object, and provide a school for technical education; or why not establish continuation schools, where the knowledge acquired in the elementary schools might be developed? The art of agriculture, including all matters appertaining to the dairy, might be taught with much advantage; and it was worth noting that there were premises ready to hand, the trustees of the Hitchin charity having kept their buildings in repair. He might be told that it was now too late to interfere with the proposed scheme, others of a similar nature having already been adopted. He admitted that it was possible that some objectionable schemes had been overlooked by their Lordships; but the fact that in the past they had neglected to examine schemes as rigorously as they ought surely afforded no excuse for fresh negligence. He therefore asked their Lordships to send the scheme back, and ask the Commissioners to provide another and more suitable to the wants of the children of Hitchin, and more in accordance with the wishes of the founder. He concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Moved, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her assent from a scheme of the Charity Commissioners laid before this House on 20th February relating to the Hitchin Free School."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that his noble Friend had stated much which he did not dispute, but omitted much which was material to the issue, and as to the education to be given he had omitted to state that the governors under the scheme, to whom much was left to be done, would be able to do what the locality might require. The noble Earl was opposed apparently to the whole system recommended by the Endowed School Commissioners and the Charity Commissioners, and approved by the Committee of the House of Commons, which made an exhaustive inquiry and reported last year. He might quote largely from that report, but it expressed the opinion that the mode adopted by the Charity Commissioners for giving to the poor through scholarships and exhibitions a higher education than they could otherwise attain was beneficial to the poor. At Hitchin there were admirable elementary schools which had been rivals of the school to which the noble Earl had drawn attention, and so severely did that school suffer from the competition that it did not fulfil its object, pupils failed, and in 1876 it was found necessary to close it. The school was originally founded for the use of the children of the people of Hitchin, not one word being said as to its being a foundation for the poor. Indeed, the character of the education prescribed was not at all adapted to the poor. The terms used implied a Grammar School. Subsequent benefactors, it was true, had said that poor children were to have the benefit of their endowments; but such stipulations could not alter the nature of the original foundation. The school did not prosper; in 1828 a great change was made in connection with it, not a proper one in itself, but under that scheme scholars dwindled away, and at one time there were only seven, at another 13, and in 1876 it was finally closed, the schoolmaster being pensioned off. Something had been said as to the excellence of the buildings; but there was only one small school room without a separate class-room, and the master's house had been reported upon by the Inspector as wholly unfit for its purpose. It might be supposed that the people of Hitchin were in a state of alarm at the prospect of the scheme coming into operation, whereas they had subscribed

  691
  £3,000 in order to start the proposed school on the foundation. He was glad they were relieved of the religious question in this controversy, but still it was behind much of the opposition to the schemes. In Holwell there were only 187 persons, and the arrangements proposed by the schemes had the approval of the Governors of the Charity, as was shown by a letter approving all but the religious portion of the scheme which could not be changed. Measures could be taken under the scheme to promote technical education if that course was found to be desirable. As to the education of girls, one foundation was for "children," which would mean both boys and girls, and in the other both were mentioned. Elementary education was amply provided for; and as these schemes supplied other requirements in a manner agreeable to the population, he hoped their Lordships would not support the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that he had been asked to present a Petition from the inhabitants of Hitchin in favour of the scheme. Hitchin was a town with a population of 9,000, and, therefore, it had a claim to be provided with good secondary education. The foundation was not a large one—not enough to establish an efficient grammar school, and, therefore, money had been subscribed to carry out the proposed scheme, but might not be forthcoming for any other plan. Trinity College, Cambridge, which was the patron of the living, had subscribed £300. According to his experience in similar cases, scholarships such as were proposed in this scheme formed a valuable link between the elementary and secondary schools and were of great valve to the working classes.
  On Question, resolved in the negative,

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 22.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Lunatics in workhouses. 48 & 49 Vict. c. 52. Form 10).
  LORD DORMER, in moving an Amendment for the purpose of compel-
  692
  ling the workhouse authorities to provide sufficient and proper accommodation for pauper lunatics, said, the borough and county asylums in England and Wales were practically full, and as the number of lunatics was increasing at the average rate of 1,300 per year, it was proposed to send harmless cases which were now in the asylums to the workhouses, and his object in moving the Amendment was to save the inhabitants of the workhouses the discomfort and degradation of having to live in association with lunatics.
  Amendment moved, in page 12, line 26, leave out from ("lunatics,") to the end of Sub-section (c).—(The Lord Dormer.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary, and therefore opposed it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 33 inclusive, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Lord HERSCHELL, the following Clause was agreed to, and inserted after Clause 33:—
  "33A. The notice by section nineteen of the Lunacy Act, 1853, required to be sent upon the recovery of a patient, shall state that unless the patient is removed within seven days from the date of the notice he will be discharged. If the patient is not removed within seven days from the date of the notice he shall be forthwith discharged without further order."
  Clauses 84 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 58 (Power to enlarge asylums in order to provide accommodation for private patients).
  LORD DORMERmoved an Amendment with the object of giving to the Local Authority power to build a hospital or asylum for private patients, and restricting the powers of enlarging, granted by this clause, to those asylums which have not accommodation for more than 400 patients.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 35, line 2, after ("Secretary of State") insert ("may erect an asylum or hospital for private patients, or if the county or borough asylum does not contain accommodation for ore than four hundred patients "); and in line 6, after ("all") insert (" new buildings or.")—(The Lord Dormer.)
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

VIVISECTION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Correspondence between the Home Office and the Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection in reference to two recent instances of infringements of the law,"
  asked, Whether it would in future be a portion of the duties of the authorities at the Home Office to cause legal proceedings to be instituted in similar cases? He had brought these cases before the House a few days ago, when the noble Lord who represented the Home Office was, unfortunately, not in his place. In one case the operation was performed on a rabbit, but without anæsthetics; and in the other case a number of animals were inoculated in the presence of a number of persons, and without anæsthetics. The law had been distinctly contravened; but upon the attention of the Home Secretary being drawn to the oases, he replied, in the one case, that the licence would be withdrawn, and in the other that so long a time had elapsed since the infringement of the law that he did not feel justified in instituting proceedings. Under these circumstances he desired to know, whether in future, in cases brought to the attention of the Home Office, it would be deemed its duty to institute proceedings.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Correspondence between the Home Office and the Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection in reference to two recent instances of infringements of the law."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  EARL BROWNLOWsaid, it certainly was a portion of the duties of the authorities at the Home Office to cause proceedings to be instituted in cases where the Vivisection Act had been infringed, and that duty had in the past been carefully discharged. This matter was brought before the House a short time ago by
  694
  the noble Viscount, when he himself was not in his place, and the Prime Minister then pointed out that no answer could be given as the Home Office did not know to what cases the noble Viscount referred. Since then the noble Viscount had privately informed him upon this point; and it appeared that the oases to which he referred were those of Dr. Hine and Professor Pemberley. Dr. Hine had a certificate, but clearly exceeded the powers granted by the certificate; and the Home Secretary, on having his attention called to the matter, withdrew the licence. Mr. Pemberley had not a certificate, and his explanation was that he was acting as the assistant of Dr. Robertson, who had. However, the infringement of the law was not discovered until the time of limitation had passed. There were extenuating circumstances in both cases. Cases could be dealt with by the Home Office according to their circumstances, and it was not necessary on every occasion to take legal proceedings. The Government had no objection to lay the Correspondence asked for upon the Table.
  Motion agreed to.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing superfluous expresssions of enactment, and enactments which, have ceased to be in force or have become un-necessarry—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 35.)

  SWEATING SYSTEM.
  Select Committee on; The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  L. Abp. Canterbury.

  L. Wigan, (E. Crawford and Balcarres).

  E. Derby.

  E. Onslow.

  V. Gordon, (E. Aberdeen).

  L. Kenry, (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl).

  L. Clinton.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Rothschild.

  L. Foxford, (E. Limerick).

  L, Monkswell.

  L. Thring.

  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

  DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
  Message of the House of Commons of Yesterday on the subject of the publication of Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, considered (according to order).
  Then it was moved, "That a Committee be appointed, to consist of Six Lords, to join with the Committee of the House of Commons as mentioned in the said Message, to inquire and report as to the cost and method of the publica-

  695
  tion of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  The same was agreed to.>
  A message sent to the Commons in answer to their message of Yesterday to inform them that this House has appointed a Committee to consist of Six Lords to join with the Committee of the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.