HL Deb 15 November 1906 vol 165 cc54-72

House again in Committee (according to order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 9:—

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to leave out the word "charitable" in the first sub-section and insert the word "educational." He said that Clause 9 enabled the local education authority to apply to the Commission established by this Bill if they desired to turn into a provided school any elementary school held under a charitable trust. Their Lordships were aware that the term "charitable trusts" was a very wide one, covering not only a trust for public elementary education but trusts for a great many other objects of public utility, such as public worship, Sunday instruction, the relief of the poor, and a vast number of other trusts of that sort. There were in the country a great many elementary schools, the trustees of which had an alternative in their trusts. They might use the buildings and endowment either for a public elementary school or for other purposes such as Sunday schools or religious observances, or they might turn their buildings into almshouses and apply their funds to that purpose. Those alternative trusts were all charitable trusts, and therefore under this clause as it stood, trustees who had such an alternative trust could be brought before and be dealt with by the Commission. It was perfectly true that His Majesty's Government had more than once expressed clearly the view that trustees with an alternative trust ought not to have their endowments or buildings or school houses interfered with by the Commission. He would just read to the Committee a passage from one of Mr. Birrell's speeches— I thought I had made it plain that under the scope of this clause, only those schools could be compelled to permit the use of their premises for the purpose of a public elementary school when it was quite plain that that was the only way in which they could discharge their trust. No language could be clearer than that. He also said that in the case of private owners and trustees, where there was an alternative trust, so far as the Bill was concerned, they would be free agents. Therefore, it was quite clear that in the mind of the Government, if those trustees were brought before the Commission, they ought to be set free, and be told that as they had an alternative trust their endowments could not be touched. If that was to be the result of bringing them before the Commission, why bring them before that tribunal at all? They might be trustees in Northumberland and Durham who were not provided with the means of locomotion, and why put them to the cost of making this defence? Surely it was only a sensible view that they should not use words in the Bill that would enable anybody to bring before the Commission trustees who were not liable to have their funds alienated and their school turned into a public elementary school. Therefore he thought this clause should be confined to educational trusts. If a trust gave the trustees no option but to supply elementary education, then they were proper subjects for the Commission to deal with. But it seemed to him a little cruel to expose to this liability trustees who had an alternative trust.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 29. to leave out the word 'charitable' and insert the word 'educational.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)


said he was desirous of obtaining more information about this clause from the Lord President of the Council. He wanted to know if his interpretation of the process which he and others who had built schools within the last eight or ten years in the slums of London would have to go through under this clause was correct or not. First of all, he understood that he would have to be taken before the Commission of three in case he did not wish to transfer his school. He then understood that if he wished to keep it as an elementary school he would have to give a guarantee for continuing that school for five years. He put it to their Lordships whether he had not a grievance in regard to that provision? To take a concrete instance of a perfectly new and very beautiful Church school which a few years ago out of their poverty they had built the middle of Bethnal Green for £8,000. Supposing he did not wish to transfer that school? He would be asked, first of all, to give a five years guarantee that he would be able to carry it on as a public elementary school. In a place like London a guarantee of that sort was a very serious thing indeed in a poor district. Even if he did give the five years guarantee the Commission, on looking into the matter, had power to say to him, "Well, on the whole, whether you like it or not, we consider your trust can be best carried out as a provided school"—in other words, that it must cease to be a Church school. In that case the large expenditure to which they had been put would be diverted to another purpose against his will. It might be said that they would be given rent for the school, but he would reply that they did not find that £8,000 to produce rent. If they had wanted a building to produce rent they would have selected a building suitable for a rubber or a boot factory, or spent their £8,000 upon something that would have brought them in a substantial monetary return. Then he looked about to see what rent he was going to get for that brand now school, and he found that the things which the Commission had to look to were four in number, all of which were on the side of the local education authority and not on his side at all. The matters which the Commission had to have regard to were— (i) The grants or assistance, if any, received from public funds towards the building, enlargement, or improvement, or fitting up of the school-house; (ii) The limited nature of the user thereof by the local education authority; (iii) The facilities given therein for special religions instruction and the performance of the original trusts; (iv) The cost of maintenance and repair. There was nothing to say that the Commissioners should consider in any way the fact that £8,000 had been spent on that school by a number of very poor people. It might be said, "Yes, but you will get facilities upon two days and perhaps more." But they did not build that school for facilities. They built it to have a school with a religious atmosphere in the middle of that large slum district, and it was an atmosphere that was so popular that the school was crowded with children from the first and had been crowded over since. His contention was that unless he had interpreted this clause wrongly that school, against the will of the owner, would be dragged down from being a Church school into being a provided school, and as far as he could see the owners would have no redress. That school was under a trust deed. He only gave it as an illustration, but there were thousands of similar cases all over the country. They had been encouraged by the Government to build those schools, and they had been told that if they erected them their maintenance would be placed upon public funds. He thought in the case of a school like the one he had mentioned they had a great grievance. In such cases there was a double trust, namely, the educational trust and a trust for teaching the children in the tenets of the Church of England. If the State made them break the religious part of the trust, was it right that they should make such educational use of it as they thought fit? Those beautiful schools were to be taken from them against their will. His grievance under the clause was that they were not permitted to keep such schools for the purposes for which they were built. If the clause was under consideration on Monday, he should move the insertion of these words— Without prejudice to the exercise by the trustees of any discretion vested in them as to the application of the schoolhouse to some other charitable purpose.


said the right rev. Prelate seemed to have passed on in his remarks to a later part of the clause. When they came to discuss the other portions he had two or three points which he would like to state. In the meantime the Amendment was to omit the word "charitable" and insert the word "educational." What he thought they were anxious to know from the Government was why they had chosen a wide word like "charitable," which included a great deal more than "educational," when, in reality, the schoolhouses had reference only to education. As they understood it, this Commission was to be established for the purpose of dealing with trusts connected with education, and education only.


pointed out that what had been called alternative trusts were, in another place, called open trusts. The Minister for Education had said that alternative trusts referred to such oases as the Wesleyan schools, and he went on to say— He did not suppose that they would be brought before the Commission at all. But the Attorney-General went further than that, and said— Open trusts, where there were large discretionary powers, would not, he should think, come within the scope of the clause. He was sure the noble Earl would be glad to have an opportunity to explain this point upon which there seemed to have been some misunderstanding in regard to the statement made by one of the Law Officers of the Crown. He wished to know whether they were to take it that alternative and open trusts were not trusts at all. He did not venture to suggest the course the noble Earl and the Government should take, but he thought their Lordships would agree with him that it would be well if that matter were cleared up, because from what had been said in another place the point was by no means clear at present.


said he was sorry to differ from the Earl of Camperdown and Viscount Llandaff upon this point. The term "charitable trusts" was used very deliberately. It was a term well understood in law, and even if the clause was limited to "educational trusts," they would still remain "charitable trusts." It should not be forgotten that this Bill dealt only with schoolhouses and property subject to educational trusts. If the property which Viscount Llandaff alluded to was not subject to a trust for education at all, it would not come within the purview of the Bill, and therefore it could not be treated as an alternative trust. That was a matter, however, which had better be dealt with later in the clause. He was not altogether in accord with His Majesty's Government upon the Bill, but on this point he felt quite clear that the words "charitable trusts" were used correctly and ought to be retained in the Bill.


I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence in dealing with a point which in the main is really a point of law. When I alluded to certain legal aspects of this measure on the Second Reading, the noble Earl was not in his place, but the late Lord Chancellor twitted me with having rather rashly stepped within those precincts. I can assure you that I approach those dreadful precincts on tiptoe, and I am prepared to run away whenever any learned and noble Earl raises an intricate legal point. But after all, these matters have to be dealt with by the votes of laymen, and laymen will have to play a considerable part in the administration of this clause. Consequently although in a very crude and imperfect manner, I hope I may be able to excite in the minds of those who are as ignorant as I am some perceptions of a kindred nature. The single point raised by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the cross benches is that we have used the term "charitable trusts" instead of "educational trusts." But Lord Barnard has indicated in the main the reasons which induced the Government to insert the word "charitable" instead of "educational." So far as this clause is concerned, it may be the case that the word actually used does not very greatly matter. The Bishop of London has asked me to indicate what the process would be when a school came before the Commission. What happens is this. Under Clause 1 any school which is not a provided school receives neither rate nor grant. Therefore, every school which is subject to a charitable trust has to consider whether its trust can be carried on or not. It may be carried on as the right rev. Prelate indicated by being turned into a certified efficient school, but I will not attempt to deal with the reason which induced us to say that a five years guarantee would be necessary for that purpose. Consequently, owing to the provisions of the Bill, all schools subject to trusts are liable to go before the Commission. If it is found that the trust is of an alternative character, and of the kind mentioned by the noble Viscount, the Commission will be able to declare that fact and authorise the trustees to carry out their trusts in an alternative way. When the right rev. Prelate complains that the Commission may have to consider what is the best mode of giving effect to the trust, and expresses the fear that it might always mean the turning of the school into a provided school, I must ask him to look at the top of the same page of the Bill where he will find it stated that— The Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court. It is perfectly obvious that if there is really an alternative the Commission would give the trustees the option of exercising that trust as a matter of course and acting on behalf of the Court of Chancery. Consequently, when "the best mode" is spoken of it means the best mode subject to the principles of the Court of Chancery. Viscount Llandaff said it was a hardship that these people should go before the Commissioners at all, but they must go before somebody unless they are prepared to carry on their school as a certified efficient school without public funds.


But they have an alternative trust?


But surely someone must approve a scheme on which an alternative trust can be exercised, or otherwise anyone could bring the trustees before the Court for not exercising their trust in a proper manner.


They might make an arrangement under Clause 2.


That is perfectly true. I would, however, draw attention to the first words of the clause, which state— Where the school house of an existing voluntary school is held under charitable trusts and no arrangement has been made with respect to schoolhouse under this Act. If no arrangement has been made the school cannot be carried on. It has been said that these parties should appear before the Commission and have their trusts examined in order to see if they are of an alternative nature, and then they would be free to carry them out. These trusts are of a most various character, and they contain all manner of provisions. There are a number of Roman Catholic trusts which allow alienation from educational to other purposes. Those will be dismissed by the Commissioners if the trustees choose to carry out their trusts in another way. On the other hand, there are declaratory trusts, where a declaration of trust has been made in quite recent years after a long-continued user of the schools as elementary schools. That applies where the schools are now declared primarily to exist as Roman Catholic elementary schools, and secondly, for charitable purposes. Whether those schools would be allowed to go free and select the other alternative would, of course, be a matter which the Commission would have to decide.

As to mixed trusts as distinct from alternative trusts, and where the purpose for which each part of the trust is to be used is clear, I do not know what the noble Viscount would suggest; but I ask whether it would not be a convenience if mixed trusts could be dealt with as a whole by the Commission in one scheme, instead of obliging the trustees to come before the Commission, and probably before the Charity Commissioners or the Court, to got a fresh scheme for the other part. That would be a convenience for the trustees. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the Commission from making a complete scheme for the whole trust if the trustees desired it. No one suggests, I should imagine, that the Commission would do anything of this kind against the will of the trustees. I think the question of the interference of the Court of Chancery arises on a later Amendment, and therefore I will not attempt to deal with it now. As regards the insertion of the word "educational" instead of ''charitable," we adhere to our belief that the word "charitable" is the better word to use. I do not think that the insertion of the word "educational" would make any practical difference so far as Clause 9 is concerned, although I might have something to say on a later clause upon which the noble Viscount again wishes to make a change. I hope the Committee will take the opinion of Lord Barnard on these matters in addition to the opinion of His Majesty's Government, and I appeal to the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.


said it appeared to him that the noble Earl had not confined himself to the first Amendment, but had dealt more or less with the general scheme of the clause. The first suggestion made by his noble friend was that "charitable" was not the proper word to use, and that a better word would be "educational." He looked upon that as a complement to the scheme of the Bill, because the words used in Clause 2 were "charitable trusts." They started with the words "charitable trusts," and they gave the owners of a schoolhouse with charitable trusts the power of making an arrangement. This clause was the complement of that proposal, and it provided that where a schoolhouse, subject to such a trust, had not made an arrangement, then the Commissioners would come in and deal with the school which had not been dealt with in the way laid down under Clause 2. He would prefer that, on the Report stage, that that idea should be considered in reference to the two clauses. It would be convenient to deal with the point upon a later clause, and he hoped his noble friend would allow that part of his Amendment to stand over until the next stage of the Bill.


gathered from the noble Earl's reply that the statement made by the Attorney- General was not the view taken by the noble Earl himself. The Attorney-General had said that an alternative trust would not come before the Commission at all, but he gathered from the reply which had just been given that that was not so. He understood that where there was an alternative trust the trustees had a discretion, but it appeared to him that this proviso took away that discretion from the trustees and vested it in the Commission of Three.


said he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but he would like the noble Earl to consider seriously whether this provision was not inflicting a hardship on trustees who had an alternative trust. Supposing in the case of a mixed trust part of the funds had to be devoted to public elementary education and part to providing almshouses for old people: under this Bill they might bring those trustees before the Commission and the whole endowment might be devoted to the purposes of public elementary education, which would clearly be wrong. His view was that they took the educational trusts and the trusts that were not educational, and turned the schools held under both into public elementary schools, and he thought that was a hardship.


There is no reason why the Commission should do that any more than the Court of Chancery or the Charity Commissioners.


said he thought the Commission would be quite free from the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to insert words giving power to "the owners of the school-house," as well as the local authority, to apply to the Commission to make a scheme with respect to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the schoolhouse in the future.

Amendment moved— In page, 7 line 31, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'or the owners of the schoolhouse.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)


I regard the Amendment as consequential on what your Lordships have done in an earlier part of the Bill, and I offer no opposition, but I guard myself from being supposed to be an assenting party to the whole scheme of which the present Amendment is a part.


pointed out that this was not a consequential Amendment. It might be that the owners were unable to make an arrangement because the local education authority would not meet them in a way which they thought reasonable. The Amendment would allow the owners to appeal to the Commission for a fair arrangement.


Yes, but it is more or less consequential upon what has been done earlier in the Bill.

VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of paragraph (a) from sub-section 2. He said that nothing was more emphatically asserted in the House of Commons than that this Commission was going to act upon the principles of the Court of Chancery. That was the answer made whenever the large powers of the Commission were complained of. It was said that the Commission was to be instituted because the Court of Chancery would not have time to deal with the large number of voluntary schools which would have to be dealt with, and so the Government said they would appoint some eminent men to act as a kind of chapel-at-ease to the Court of Chancery, and it was stated distinctly that they would be guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery. Nothing could be more satisfactory than that, but those words were now followed by other provisos which introduced matters quite contrary to the principles of the Court of Chancery. There was the requirement that the owners of a school should give a guarantee for its effective continuance during the period of at least five years. He did nut think any noble and learned Lord would assert that that was one of the principles upon which the Court of Chancery would ever dream of acting; they never would impose upon trustees conducting public elementary schools as a going concern a condition that they should give a guarantee for the effective continuance of a school for five years. Such a principle was unknown in the Court of Chancery. What had happened in this Bill was that a broad principle had been laid down, and then it was followed by exceptions which completely destroyed the Bill, Paragraph (b) was still more contrary to the principles of the Court of Chancery. The effect of that sub-section would be to enable the Commissioners to take a school of which the trust was denominational, and which had been built for the very object of carrying on denominational teaching of a certain kind, and make a scheme which they considered would be the best mode of giving effect to the trust. They might take such a school and twist it into a Cowper-Temple school unless the trustees were prepared to give a guarantee to maintain the school for five years. To whom the guarantee was to be given he did not know, neither did he know what shape it was to take because the question was left vague and at the good pleasure of the Court. How were they going to get the humble subscribers to the right rev. Prelate's school in Bethnal Green, which cost £8,000, subscribed in half-crowns and sovereigns, to give a guarantee that they would continue their subscriptions for five years? He contended that the requirement of such a guarantee was a thing unknown to the Court of Chancery, and he begged to move the omission of paragraph (a).

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 4, to leave out from the word 'Court' to the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2)."—(Viscount Llandaff.)


, in supporting the Amendment, said the case was much stronger than had been made out by the noble Viscount. The Act laid down that the Commissioners— Shall not treat a proposal to carry on an elementary school as a proper mode of giving effect to the trusts of the school-house unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years. It did not even say that if the guarantee were given they could carry on the school. Whether they gave the guarantee or not it did not follow that the school would be carried on; at least that was his conclusion after reading paragraph (b).


thought a good deal of significance attached to the word "but." It did not appear to him that paragraph (a) under sub-section (2) was in accordance with the principles of the Court of Chancery. Why should trustees who desired to carry on their trusts not be allowed to do so, even if they were willing—simply because they could not give an undertaking to carry on the school for five years? Sir Henry Craik, who spoke with great authority upon this Bill, had said deliberately that this condition was one which it was impossible for trustees to fulfil. Therefore he hoped the noble Earl would be able to tell them that this was a point to which His Majesty's Government were prepared to give further consideration. A very strong feeling had been raised by it, and he looked upon it as a proposal which violated the very rudiments of liberty. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to assure the Committee on this point, because a great many people considered it most objectionable and inequitable.


said there were one or two points which had not been made quite clear to the Committee. He wished to know what kind of schools could be carried on under this guarantee. Would it include a certified efficient school or a State-aided school? He wished to know what was the exact meaning of "a sufficient guarantee." Did it mean that the trustees would be obliged to produce a guarantee to provide a certain amount of funds for five years, or would the assurance of certain persons be considered sufficient without laying down a certain sum of money? It was important they should know these things before voting for this clause, because it seemed a very cruel thing that schools should be abruptly stopped from carrying out their trusts.


I want to ask why it is that His Majesty's government are not content to leave the Commission to be guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery? What they do in effect is that they begin by laying down that the Commission is to follow the principles of the Court of Chancery, and then they proceed to enumerate a number of considerations which the Commission is to take into account. With regard to those considerations, it occurs to me that most of them are considerations which, without any special guidance, would be present to the minds of the Commission; and, in the next place, the considerations singled out are of a one-sided character, and all of them adverse to the owners, while no other considerations which conceivably might have operated in another direction find a place in the clause.


This proposal has evidently caused a considerable degree of criticism on the part of noble Lords opposite and many right rev. Prelates. Perhaps my best plan is to state briefly what the position of a school under these circumstances is. This is a trust school, and if the educational character of the charity is proved, unless it is made the subject of an arrangement, it loses the whole of its State support both from the rates and from grants. Noble Lords may say that that is a scandalous thing to do, and that we have no right to treat schools in this way. That, however, is a semi-political question, and I only mention it to make it clear that that is what legally would occur under the Bill. The right rev. Prelate says that that is a great shame, because the school has been carried on with the aid of grants, but I would remind the right rev. Prelate that it is not a one-sided arrangement. It is at least equally true to say that the grants were allowed by the State on the payment of subscriptions, and that when the subscriptions were not adequate the bargain failed. Suppose the school having lost its rates and grants is penniless and it comes before the Commission in that form. I respect the opinion of the noble Viscount, but I should certainly have thought that if a school in that condition was going before the Court of Chancery for a scheme, which is what it would have to do, a mere statement that it was going to be carried on as a certified efficient school would not have been enough for any Court, and they would have said when a scheme was asked for, "You must show us how you are going to carry on the school as a certified efficient school." A general statement that the owners were going to carry on a school by private funds would certainly not be taken as the groundwork of a scheme which the Court would have to prepare. The Bishop of Wakefield asked me whether such a school could become a State-aided school. The answer to that is "Certainly not," because if the right rev. Prelate looks at the Bill he will see that various processes have to be gone through before schools can become Stateaided schools, and it would be impossible for the trustees to foresee those conditions and to prophesy that the school would fulfil the conditions required of a State-aided school. What is meant by this is a certified efficient school. Then it is said that it is a monstrous hardship to require that it should be carried on under a guarantee for five years. Apparently it has not occurred to noble Lords and right rev. Prelates what the obvious reason of this provision is. It seems to be assumed that it is due to some sort of animosity against the religiously conducted schools. What has been in the mind of the Government is a consideration which, unluckily, we have not heard as much of as we ought to have heard during the last few days, owing to the necessities of the case. What was in the mind of the Government is a purely educational consideration. It is obvious that, if people are tempted by a desire to keep these schools going, they may hold a vain hope that they might be able to carry them on as certified efficient schools without rate or grant. That would happen in proportion to the fervour and keenness of those interested in the schools, and the enthusiastic and hopeful would try to persuade themselves and others that the money would be found. Perhaps it would not be found, and the school would necessarily go down. It would then be badly conducted, the children would suffer, and, after all, probably they would have to come for a scheme. That is the simple reason why this provision has been inserted; and if it is struck out I should consider that the Bill suffered severely. The question of the guarantee will be left to the Commissioners to decide. I think it is evident that they would demand something more than a mere friendly assurance that the money would be found; they would demand some distinct assurance that the subscriptions would be forthcoming for the term of five years.


said their Lordships would realise what an extraordinary and difficult thing it would be to give a guarantee for five years in a poor district with a shifting population, and he could not see why anything like a period of five years should be required at all. It did not take five years to make the necessary changes, and this guarantee would be prohibitory in many cases. He protested against the noble Earl's assertion that subscriptions had fallen off. As a matter of fact they had doubled, while the expense of education had increased something like four or five times. It would be an almost intolerable thing to expect that the subscriptions should be maintained in proportion to the constantly rising cost of education.


said that the clause provided that the Commission should abide by the rules of the Court of Chancery, and he could not understand why these one-sided conditions had been inserted. The noble Earl said it was necessary that the guarantee should be for five years, but surely that was a point which the Court of Chancery ought to take into consideration? It appeared to him that the more reasonable course would be to leave the Commission to abide by the rules of the Court of Chancery.


thought noble Lords had forgotten the interests of the ratepayers and of the local authority. There must be some security for what the local authority might be called upon to undertake in the future, and it was surely a rational thing that a period should be laid down within which the guarantee was to operate. As to the increase of subscriptions, he did not underrate the efforts made either in the past or now by sincere Churchmen, but he asked how it had come about that since 1902 the whole annual maintenance of Church schools had been thrown upon the county or borough funds? He failed to see under those circumstances how there could be any call upon Church subscribers for the upkeep of those schools. He knew they had to keep up the structural repair of the schools, but they had to do that before.


said the argument of the Lord President of the Council was that the whole circumstances had changed by the falling off of the subscriptions. He was speaking of what had happened during the last decade, and he was speaking in general terms. The position had been affected very much since 1902, but it was quite a misapprehension, and a common one outside, to take simply the percentage of the proportion of the cost of education as a whole and then say that the Church subscriptions had fallen off. It was true that the subscriptions were bearing a smaller proportion to the cost of education than they used to, but they were very much larger in amount, and wore not smaller than in the decade immediately preceding.


pointed out that these schools must be certified efficient schools. He thought it would be better if the clause ran "unless the proprietors give an undertaking to conduct their school as a certified efficient school." The great mass of Church of England schools were held under the trust deeds of the National Society, which provided for the education of the children in the principles of the Church of England. He thought it was only fair that whore there was a wish to keep on the school they should have the right to do so, and they would be giving complete effect to the trust if they undertook to maintain their school as a certified efficient school. If the words he suggested were put in the people who undertook to manage a school would do so at their own risk, and the local authority would have a prompt remedy if they did not fulfil their trust, because the school would have to be inspected by the Government Inspector.


hoped that the Government would consider the suggestion which had been thrown out by the noble Lord opposite. The five years guarantee was a serious matter, but to undertake to maintain the school as a certified efficient school was quite a different thing, and one which, he thought, might fairly be considered by the Government.


As regards this suggestion, I do not know whether it has occurred to my noble friend that the practical difficulty which we have to meet is not overcome by his suggestion. There would be nothing to prevent a large number of schools declaring their intention to become certified efficient schools and not remaining efficient long, and that, of course, would not carry out the object of the Bill.


said that surely the Government could trust their own Commission in this matter not to allow a school to continue unless the conditions were reasonable. They called

House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.

a Commission into existence and gave it great powers, and then they fettered the Commissioners all through with conditions as to how they should carry out those powers.

On Question, "That paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 30; Not-contents, 91.

Crewe, E. (L. President.) Temple, E. Kinnaird, L.
Lyveden, L.
Manchester, D. Brassey, L. Reay, L.
Burghclere, L. Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
Coleridge, L. Sandhurst, L.
Beauchamp, E. Courtney of Penwith, L. Saye and Sele, L.
Carrington, E. Denman, L. [Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, L.
Chesterfield, E. Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Tweedmouth, L.
Chichester, E. Wandsworth, L
Craven, E. Fitzmaurice, L. Weardale, L.
Portsmouth, E. Haversham, L. Welby, L.
Russell, E. Headley, L.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Radnor, E. Barrymore, L.
Stamford, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Stanhope, E. Blythswood, L.
Newcastle, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Braye, L.
Northumberland, D. Wharncliffe, E. Cheylesmore, L.
Richmond and Gordon, D. Yarborough, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Somerset, D. Clinton, L.
Cobham, V. Colchester, L.
Ailesbury, M. Colville of Culross, V. De Mauley, L.
Bath, M. Falkland, V. Estcourt, L.
Camden, M. Falmouth, V. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Exeter, M. Halifax, V. Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)
Hertford, M. Hill, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Lansdowne, M. Llandaff, V. Harris, L.
Winchester, M. St. Aldwyn, V. Hastings, L.
Hylton, L.
Abingdon, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Camperdown, E. Bath and Wells, L. Bp. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Cathcart, E. Birmingham, L. Bp. Knaresborough, L.
Cawdor, E. Chester, L. Bp. Lawrence, L. [Teller.]
Dartrey, E. Exeter, L. Bp. Leith of Fyvie, L.
Denbigh, E. Lincoln, L. Bp. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Devon, E. London, L. Bp. Newton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Oxford, L. Bp. North, L.
St. David's, L. Bp. Rathmore, L.
Gainsborough, E. Southwark, L. Bp. Redesdale, L.
Guilford, E. Winchester, L. Bp. Seaton, L.
Haddington, E. Stalbridge, L.
Kilmorey, E. Abinger, L. Waleran, L.
Lichfield, E. Addington, L. Wolverton, L.
Londesborough, E. Ampthill, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Onslow, E. Ashbourne, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Barnard, L.

House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.