favourite technical education should be renewed for 10 years; I certainly was thereby impeded, should raise objections not aware of that fact. It will be into the operative classes being instructed formation for the country. We were by a Committee of this House! ["Oh, told by the First Lord of the Treasury, oh!"] Let me ask those Gentlemen when a debate took place upon an analowho so persistently cry "Oh," whether gous subject, the Treaty with Austria, these working classes do not pray you to that the practice of this country was inquire into this subject for their infor- different from that of other countries, mation? If they do not ask that, what and we are quite aware of it. Accordis it that they do ask? And if this is ing to the practice of this country, the their request, is it not most reasonable? Government have power to commit the Is it not the same request that has been Crown to a Commercial Treaty in the first preferred by, and granted to, the opera-instance, whenever it may seem to them tives of France; the same that has been convenient to do so, and it is not until pressed by, and conceded to, the opera- the Crown has been committed that the tives of Austria? If you are so confi- Legislature is consulted. In other coundent and so sure that the renewal of this tries this power is not conferred upon Treaty for another 10 years will be for the Crown; and, as that is the case, I their advantage, why refuse to prove it say that, in a matter which like this to the working classes? Sir, I must be mutually affects the interests of these allowed to say that I shall see with deep foreigners and our own, it would be conregret this House treated less respect-venient for us to institute an inquiry in fully by the Government of this country the first instance. Sir, great political than the Legislature of France has been treated by the Emperor, or the Austrian Reichsrath by its Sovereign; because we only ask for the same means of obtaining information as have been conceded to them; and, I must add, that the reasons advanced against us have been of the weakest description. There has been a demand for facts; and early in the debate we were told that there were none alleged. But the hon. Member for the West Riding subsequently adduced facts in the most lucid manner; and what was the observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting them? Why, that nothing could be more dangerous or mischievous than to create in the minds of the working classes the suspicion that their interests could in any way be effected by the action of the Government of this country with regard to what? The renewal of this Treaty? ["No, no."] Then what is the object? I shall be glad to know, if it is not the renewal of the Treaty. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not made that statement. There is no question of renewing the Treaty. It is not to be renewed for 10 years, as the hon. Member imagines, with all the care he has given to the question. It is terminable at a year's notice by either side. MR. NEWDEGATE: At last we have a piece of information. ["Oh, oh!" The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that this Treaty is not to be changes have taken place in the constitution and practice of foreign States— they are becoming constitutional, and it seems to me perfectly clear that, if this House refuses inquiry, it will place itself in a position more different from that occupied by the Legislatures of other countries than was formerly the case, since it will have refused a request made on behalf of the working classes of England, to be treated as foreign operatives have been treated by their Governments. The English operatives will feel that, by this refusal, they are placed in a position less creditable to themselves than that which has been assumed by the working classes of either Austria or France. MR. DELAHUNTY said, he hoped. that the House would not at the call of North Warwickshire or Manchester turn its back on free trade. He hoped they would repudiate going back to the dark ages of Protection. If England was great and mighty among the Powers of the earth, it was because she had adopted the principle of free trade with the whole world; and the French Treaty was nothing more than a means by which the French Emperor sought to induce the people of France to pursue the same path as England had so long marked out for herself. It had been said that the people had suffered from free trade. It had not been shown how. Had it suffered in the amount of its sales? In the quantity of its exports and imports? No. The exports and imports were twice what they were a few years ago. And made except that the hon. Member for this had been through free trade. Thirty Oldham (Mr. Platt) had said that he did or 40 years ago the amount was only not believe that the Chamber of Comone-fifth of what it was now. When merce at Manchester had asked for inEngland ruled the sea and had Protec- quiry. To this, his reply was that the tion to the masthead the amount of document that he had referred to in his tonnage entered inwards and out- opening speech showed that the Chamwards was only 4,000,000; now it was ber of Commerce of Manchester was in over 60,000,000. Was not this an an- favour of inquiry upon the subject. swer to those who would muzzle free trade and revive Protection? If free Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. trade were put down the labouring Main Question put. classes would suffer; and England like Ireland would be depopulated. He hoped the House would not listen to the sweet persuasion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who was so fond of Committees. He got one Committee appointed last night; but he hoped he would not get another to-night. In the name of the people of Ireland he saidDown with Protection and up with free trade. MR. BIRLEY said, he would say very few words in reply. He had not attacked either free trade or the French Treaty. He did not complain of the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. His only complaint was that the hon. Gentleman had not come to the same conclusion as he had himself. The hon. Gentleman admitted distress in this country and the high duties charged by France; but he appeared to think that the best mode of settling the difficulty was quietly in the Board of Trade. His own notion was, that it would be best settled in the face of day by a full, fair, and free inquiry. A distinguished statesman had stated in the French Chambers that the Treaty of Commerce with England was not free trade, but that it was protection to French manufactures; and he (Mr. Birley) did not think that it was possible in two lines to describe the state of the case more clearly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was very imprudent to have any inquiry, because the French Protectionists would find it out; whereas, if we, ostrich-like, hid our heads in the sand, they would know nothing about it. One thing had struck him very much in the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite they were strongly Protectionist, not for the benefit of this country, but of France. Although he had stated the opinions of the leading Chambers of Commerce in favour of the inquiry, counter statements had not been Mr. Delahunty The House divided:-Ayes 50; Noes 138: Majority 88. PUBLIC SCHOOLS. MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th April]," That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to be pleased to order that ing the constitution of the new governing bodies in the five Statutes for determining and establishof Shrewsbury, Winchester, Harrow, Charterhouse, and Rugby Schools, the words requiring membership of the Church of England as a qualification in the case of persons elected or nominated members of the governing bodies may be omitted."-(Mr. Thomas Hughes.) Question again proposed. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that he should be obliged if the House would allow him, as one of the Commissioners appointed under this Act of Parliament, to state shortly the views entertained by himself and several others of the Commissioners as to the duties that the Bill cast upon them, and the reasons for the course that they took in opposing this provision in the statutes of the schools. The Public Schools Act was passed in 1868, and under it an Executive Commission was appointed by Parliament to carry it into effect. It would be seen that by the Act those who had to carry it into effect had no choice but to proceed in the way in which they had proceeded, and that this provision was one that, under the circumstances, it was not open to them to depart from. He regretted that the discussion had been raised, because, after all, the provision would have very little effect, except in one or two instances, and in those few instances would affect to but a limited extent the constitution of the Governing Bodies. The provision, too, did not in any way touch the management or go vernment of the schools themselves, but mendations of those Commissioners, it provided solely that every member of would be proper to proceed in the spirit the Governing Bodies of the schools to and letter of the Act itself, and to do which it referred should be members of those things which, upon the fairest and the Church of England. Now, inas- most candid consideration of the provimuch as the constituent bodies by whom sion of the Act, might appear to be right. the members were nominated or elected Those with whom he acted knew well were themselves exclusively or to, at all what his individual convictions were events, a very large extent composed of upon this subject; but, whatever might members of the Church of England, it be his personal opinions or the convicwas evident that only in very rare and tions of the Commissioners individually, exceptional cases it could happen that having accepted office they were bound this question would arise at all. The in honour and candour to carry into two Universities of Oxford and Cam- effect the Act of Parliament to the best bridge, in some cases the Fellows of of their judgment irrespective of those Colleges, and in others persons always convictions. In the Act there was a practically members of the Church of provision showing that the Governing England, were the people who had to Bodies would have to deal with ecclesiassend the various elements of which these tical patronage. Then, in another part Governing Bodies were composed, and it of the Act, the Governing Bodies had to was only when the University of London make certain regulations respecting the was made a constituent body and in attendance at divine service; and where some other partial and exceptional case the school had a chapel of its own, reguthat the question could arise, though he lations had to be made as to chapel serwas willing to admit that here and there vices and the appointment of preachers. it would have the effect of excluding This indicated strongly that the schools some one whom it might be desirable to were Church of England schools. Regusee on the Governing Body. He did not lations had also to be made which should believe that the presence of one or two give facilities for the education of boys members on the Governing Bodies not whose parents or guardians desired to belonging to the Church of England withdraw them from the religious inwould have much practical effect; but struction afforded in the schools; and to there could be no doubt that this provi- meet this, a distinct order in the Act dision tended to make the Governing rected the Governing Body of each school, Bodies more exclusively Church of Eng- or the Commissioners in the absence of land than they otherwise would be. It that body, to insert in any statutes that was important that the House should might be framed for the government of understand the law under which the the school a Conscience Clause. Again, Public School Commissioners found them- this enactment directly indicated the selves acting in this case; and it should mind of Parliament that these schools also be borne in mind that there were were to be maintained on their original seven public schools, of which two- footing of Church of England schools, Eton and Westminster - formed their but giving liberty to persons other than own statutes; these were approved by members of the Church to send their the Executive Commission of which he children to the school, and respecting had the honour of being a member; the their religious views. By the 31st clause same statutes passed that House without of the Act he found that the chapel objection; and it was only in regard to attached to every school should be the remaining five schools the present deemed to be a chapel allowed by the question arose. By the statute, a pro- ecclesiastical law of this land for the vision of which it was now proposed to purpose of public worship, and for the repeal, it appeared that an Inquiry Com-administration of sacraments according mission in 1861 made a Report recom-to the Liturgy of the Church of England, mending various changes in the govern- and free from the control and jurisdicment, management, and studies con- tion of the incumbent of the parish in nected with the schools named, with a which the chapel might be situate. It view to promote efficiently the main ob- must be remembered that all those seven jects of the founder. Unless there was schools had been, up to the time of the very good reason for departing from passing of the Act, distinguished as either the spirit or letter of the recom-Church of England schools. The Com missioners then being in the position to make arrangements for the studies and management of the institutions, found them to be Church of England institutions exclusively. There was not a word from the beginning to the end of the Act authorizing the Commissioners to alter their character, and therefore they deemed it their duty to proceed in the spirit of the law, and, until Parliament should alter the law, to maintain the character of those institutions which they found to exist. The Commission consisted of a number of gentlemen, some of whom certainly would not have accepted the office which they undertook, and could not have been asked by the Government to do so, if the object had not been to continue the character which at that time was impressed on the schools. The Chairman was the Archbishop of York. Lord Salisbury was a member of the Commission, and so were the hon. Members for Southampton, Maidstone, and Perth, Sir John Shaw Lefevre, and himself. He would put it to the House whether it was likely that either the Archbishop of York or his noble Friend Lord Salisbury would have been asked by the late Lord Derby to take part in operations to be carried out under this Act unless the general purport of it had been such as he had described? That being the state of the case, and such the provisions of the Act of Parliament, it was the duty of the Commissioners, of whom he was one, to ascertain what the Commission of 1861 had recommended with respect to the seven schools which were confided to their care. With respect to Winchester, which was one of the five schools comprehended in the proposed Address, the Commission of 1861 recommended that the Governing Body should consist of a warden and 11 fellows, who should be all members of the Established Church. The Commission of which he was a member had only endeavoured to carry that recommendation into effect. With respect to Rugby, the existing Governing Body consisted of 12 trustees, who had in fact legislative powers almost unlimited for the government of the school; and the trusts were not subject to any religious disqualification, either by the will of the founder or the Act of George III., being the fundamental law of the school. They had, however, before them a letter from the clerk to the trustees, stating that the The Solicitor General practice had always been to appoint persons who were members of the Church of England, and no instance had occurred from the time of the founder up to the present time of the appointment of any one who was not a member of the Church of England. They found that the chapel of Rugby School was by Parliamentary enactment to be a chapel of the Church of England, and, under these circumstances, the Commissioners thought it their duty to place the provision which they had done on the statute. He did not wish to take a party course in this matter, and it was for the House to say whether the Commissioners had done rightly or not. They did not set up to be wiser than the rest of mankind; but it was only right that the House should understand the materials on which the judgment of the Commissioners was founded, and the principles by which they felt themselves bound. In regard to Shrewsbury the trustees were 12 besides the mayor, and by the Act of 1798 it was declared that they should be all members of the Church of England except the mayor. The Inquiry Commission recommended that the Governing Body should be subject to the same qualification-namely, members of the Church of England. In regard to the Charterhouse, the Governing Body was 16 in number, and was regulated by the statute of 1627. The governors were bound to take the oath of supremacy, but were not subject to any other religious disqualification. The Inquiry Commission recommended that one-fourth should be chosen for their eminence in literature and science, but made no specific mention of any religious disqualification. But finding no indication whatever in the statutes or practice that that exclusive character should be changed, it appeared to the Commission that it was their duty to maintain that restriction for the future. In respect to Harrow, the Governing Body was six keepers and governors; but though there was nothing in the statutes requiring them to be of the Church of England, the Inquiry Commission found that it had been the invariable practice to appoint only such. The Commission of 1864 recommended that the Governing Body should be 12 in number, and that they should be all members of the Church of England. The Commissioners of 1861 recommended that the Governing Bodies of Winchester and Shrewsbury should be members of the Church of England; but with regard to Rugby and the Charterhouse they made no such specific recommendation. They, however, found that the practice was that the Governing Bodies were of the Church of England, and that they were Church of England schools-they had chapels which were, by Act of Parliament, to be chapels consecrated for the celebration of the services of that Church, and the Commission felt they were bound in all those cases to put in, or see that the Governing Bodies put in, a Conscience Clause, which would have been unmeaning unless there was a definite system of religious teaching to which that clause might attach, and the enactment of such a clause was conclusive that that teaching was to be maintained. But there were two other schools. One of them was Eton, with regard to which the recommendation had been that the Governing Body should remain the Provost and Fellows, who must of necessity be in Holy Orders, and therefore members of the Church of England; the other was Westminster, almost essentially a cathedral school, and which, being attached to the Abbey, had acquired a celebrity in the country to which no other cathedral school approached. In its origin it was the creation of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and it had impressed on it from the earliest times a distinctive Church of England character. The character of those two schools must not be left out of sight; neither must it be forgotten that their Governing Bodies had themselves made their statutes, and had insisted on putting into them the provision now complained of; while, moreover, that House had sanctioned those statutes in that shape without any objection; and all the arguments that would apply to the remaining five schools would undoubtedly apply to Eton and Westminster. Those were the circumstances under which they proceeded to act; and, in the result, they thought it their duty to place that restriction in the statutes affecting the Governing Bodies of five of those schools. He regretted the question had been raised, because he thought it was a bad thing for the Church of England that matters which, in his opinion, were prejudicial and exceedingly unimportant if they were to be given against the Church of England, should be given as it were after a vote of victory, or as something extorted from the Church. The question having been raised before the Commission, they thought it their duty to decide the question, and it would be a strong step on the part of the Crown and the House, if, without any change in the law, the Government of the country proceeded to decide that which had been left by the statute an open question. It might be said that since the Public Schools Act the Endowed Schools Act had been passed, and that they ought to read the former Act by the latter. He would not give a legal opinion on the point; it was no part of his duty to do so. He was not prepared to say that, according to the construction of that Act, it would be an illegal thing to have framed the provision differently, nor that the passing of the Endowed Schools Act might not be a good reason for altering the law as to the public schools left out of that Act; but he did say that, in construing the Act under which they were created to deal with the government, discipline, and management of public schools in 1868, it would be contrary to his notions of law to bring into the construction of that Act an Act passed afterwards, which could have nothing whatever to do with the construction of the Act under which they were acting, and to which alone they were to look for the guiding principles of their conduct in the execution of their functions. Having stated to the House the grounds on which they had arrived at their conclusion, he most unfeignedly said he left it to the House to consider what it might be right to do in the matter, only trusting that if the House should conceive that they had been wrong, it would allow that the reasons on which they had acted as they had done were at least entitled to a good deal of weight and consideration. MR. BRUCE said, he was anxious immediately to follow his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, inasmuch as it should be clearly understood that his hon. and learned Friend had spoken as a Commissioner under the Public Schools Act, and not as a member of the Government. All who had heard him must admit that there were strong and stringent reasons why the view that he had stated should have been taken by the Commissioners. At the same time, his hon. and learned Friend fairly ad |