The Express.
London, England, 1859-07-07 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY RVENING, JULY 7, 1869.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNuDAT, iIII.T 1,
(Continued from yesterday's &prose.)
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.
The ATTORNEY-ORNERAL said that If it were pole
able to deal with the mmeden In the courts with the
spirit of liberality seised by the boa. baronet (Sir S.
Northcate) there would be ao netessity for Imislation. But
unfortunately then added a series of artificial preemptions
and rules of conotructkm which compelled those who 'dad-
aist' red charities to dose In a way which they felt w in-
consistent with public utility. (Hear, bear.) Nothing could
in fact present a greater centre& thee the principles of legis-
lation In the mu of the Birmingham and other large schools
and the provisions which the Court of Chancery felt Itself
obliged to adopt. In the first piece, the court held that all
schools founded before the Reformation must have been
founded fur the exclusive beretit of muebere of the church of
England. That was an arbitrary presumption not based
spin the intention of the founder, but upon the idea that
se the law did not admit of • difference of religious
elision before the Reformation, charities founded at that
period must have been intended for the members of the
church then in its Ronda& form, and now in lie reformed '
&erecter. That was • rule which it was not desirable to
paphime. (Hear, hear.) A similar rule applied to chart-
thee leaded between the Reformation and the loleratioa
Act. A third rule was that where an educational
charity was established simple-du without anything being
said an the subject of religious ieetructfoe, or with a provision
that there should be religious inetructlon nmpliciter,
the Court of Chancery would assume that must be
church education. There was yet another, and a still
more mischievous rule, namely, th it where • school was
founded with a direction that the master should be • clergy-
man, the religious Instruction must be left solely to the mu-
' tar. The result was that one rear dissenters might be ad-
mitred, and the next they might be wholly excluded. In
' 1855, he (Sir R. Bethel)) being Attorney-Oeneral, en-
deavoured to proems the unction of the Court of Chaucer,
to • scheme for the Chelmsford School, in which was •
dean giving leave to dissenting &tholes not to at-
' toad the religious Instruction of the master; but
Sir W. Page Wood refused to assent to that proposal,
sad it was dine that the neseseity arose for some legislation
to do away with the arbitrary sad technical rules upon which
Sir W. Page Wood's decision was based. He did not wish
to abandon the great duty of imparting religious instruction;
bat the legislation proposed would lease that duty wholly on-
I impaired. The limiest& ace fully warranted the elate-
meat of his bon. friend, that an aggression had
been made upon the rights of the diadems; for in
that case, although there had been dissenting member.
of the board of treaties for 160 years, the Court of
Chancery had set aside that uaage, arid had refused t r admit
a scheme by which dissenter, were formally crate eligible to
be trustees. lie (the boa. and learned gentleman) should
therefore support the second reediagof the bill, on the under-
standing that its language should be open to comideratlan in
committee. (Loud cheers )
Sir H. CAIRNS said that the hon. gentleman (Sir R.
Bothell) bedstead three& four grounds on whictthesupp.eted
the bill any one of which would completely supplant all the
reef. (Haar, bear.) II the hardship complained of in the
Ilminiter ease was what he wished to remedy,
he (Sir 11. Cairns) would admit, on the precedent of the
Dissenters' Chapel. Bill, that it WAS desterfag of considera-
tion by the house. But then, if he sought to give effect to
long usage, there was an end • bill the object of which was
to set usage aside. (Hear, hear.) Again, there were all
over the country • great number of educational charities.,
each of whit* had beat begun by some small bequest, say, of
61. or 101. a-year. The schools so founded having acquired
the character of church school', had received a great number
of other benefactione, and were now the holders of a large
property. But how did the hon. gentleman propose to deal
frith them ? He would demand in each case to see the deed
or will of the original founder; and If that could not be found,
or if it were not explicit, than he would ceouthaeste all thou
benefactions which had been given on the understanding
that the school was a church school. (Cheers.) The hon.
gentleman avowed that he did pot wish to abandon the great
duty of imputing religious instruction; but how did he
propose that that instruction should be given?
They most adopt one of three courses—either to make the
instruction that of the church of England, or that of all
classes of dissenters, or to ignore: religious education altoge-
ther. The choice lay practically between the first and the
lee'. He dieted that the Court of Chancery had ever goes
beyond the letter of the deed in arriving at the intention
of the founder; the rules of construction observed by the
court were the same teal] eases; whether of schools or otter
charities. This was evident from the course pursued
by the court in reference to Lady Hawley', charities, which
hod been taken from the church of England and handed over
to the dissenters. In its decision with regard to the Klng
Edward Grammar Schools, the court had been
Vaby the fact that It was directed that
biattop of the diocese was to frame rules
fee the schools. (Hear, hen.) The first clause of the bill
was perfectly heelless, for it merely enacted what was the
present l.rectice of the Court of Chancery. For a number of
yeses it had been the practice of the court to introduce whet
were called " conscience dames" into new settlements in
favour of the children of di.senters ; but it was deirable
that some measure should be posed, giving to the Charity
' Commissioners, or some other body, 'general power of intro-
ducing such clauses without a resort to Chsecery in each in-
dividual clause. This was all that was needed to meet the
whams of the dissenters ; and this was not done by the bill
before the house. (Hear, hear.) He should be glad to see
the priadple of the Dinenterie Chapels Bill applied in all
awe mass. He hoped that the house would nut affirm the
mead reading of the bill in its present miechievcm
atalm 1110 w.)
[At this stage of the proceedings Lord Healey, the newly-
' eleeted ramsbeejor Northampton, was introduced, and took
the oaths sad bla seat.]

Mr. MELLOR said he felt the force of many of the objec-
tions that had been urged against particular provisions of the
bill ; but this would not induce him to vote against the second
reeding. All the objections might be removed to c3iensittee.
Ste O. C. LEWIS said that if he had baud may the
nof the Attorney-Oenrind, or only that of Sir 11,
ets he should have had little difficulty in coming to a
decieoe. But se three two eminent practitioners in Chancery
entirely differed iss to the effect of the declaims of that court,
be was at • low how to dedde. (Hear, bear.) The bill WM
avowedly introduced to remedy the effect of some recent de-
cisions in Chancery ; but how could the house know
what was the abet of those decisions, ercept by the
statement of those who were familiar with the
practice of the evert P It wee desirable that house should
know precisely what was the grievance complained
of; otharwiee they must fail in applying a remedy. On both
sides of the home it was admitted that evils resulted from the
present practice of the Court of Chancery. If it way true,
es stated by Sir H. Cairna,)that the eourt always looked to the
intention of the founder, the bill would have no injiutous
effect; for it would be merely nugatory. In the absence of
may sathentie statement as to the effect of the decisions of
the Court of Chancery, and with the cantradictory sealants
that had been given of those decisions, he thought the matter
wee not rips for decision ; and be would suggest that Mr.
Dillwyn should not call on the house to decide& matter which
they were not competent to d die, but should allow the
matter to be referred to a 'elect committee. That course
would lead to a practical conclusion more rapidly than by
proceeding with this Lill. It was always objectionable to go
into committee more for the purpose of framing a Lid than
of modifying it. (A laugh.)
Mr. A. MILLS said that if the bill pared in Its present
Senn it would work a very great hardship in the place he re-
protected (Taunton), where the foundation school having
dwindled to nothing, ft was restored to a flourishing condi-
tion by members of the Church of England. He did not ob-
ject to going into examinee on the bill.

Sir E. PERRY supported the rectnd reeding of the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE wished the home exactly to understand
its video°. The Horne Secretary Lad atergaited that the
bill should to withdrawn, sod • *elect committee appointed.
Would the promoter of the bill accede to the suggestion? If
so, he (Mr. 1Valpole) would support the reference to a select
committee; if not, he should oppose the bill, which affirmed
• principle that ought never to be sanctioned by the boom,
Mel less by the law officers date crown. That principle was
no
other than to alter the law of evidence—(Mar, bear)—not
geserelly, but le favour el one clam of the community in
particular. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WALTER thought the hoe. gentleman would do
well to accept the proposition of the right hoe. gentleman.
The bill was namely not St to pass in Its present shape, but
it was sot fit to go Into committee in its present shape.
(Hear.) The hill proposed • remedy for one grievance, but
It would meats s thousand. (Hear.) The practical grimace
was, that b • decree of the Court of Chancery, a cert tin
number of dissenter, were removed from trues which bad
been exercised by them for 150 years. That wee no doubt
a practical grievance, Lut the effect of this bill would be to
abolish the prescribed swage of contarles with regard to •
great portion of their charities. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIOHT said he was ours the hoe. member for
Swansea would endeavour to meet the can pat by the hon.
member for Taunton by the introduction of a chum or say
words in committee. Neither did he think the hen, member
would object to the introduction of words tuakieg the bill
applicable to all diameters as suggested by the right hen.
gentleman (Mr. Walpole). As far so be (Mr. Bright) knew
the epistlers of the free churches of the country, they did not
wish to apply any prinSple to the established church which
they would not apply to themselves. (Cheers.) They were
told that a greet many simile Wags could be doers is com-
mittee, and he had ao doubt this bill seats ho made a useful
and sttialectory wren la that way. Her, hear " oad
laughter.) They saw • wet embus stela of
things an the Smeary beech. (Laughter and chairs
frees the opposition.) The Attorney-General's name
wee on the back of the bill, and he made •
tart conclusive speech I. its favour. (Hear, hear.)
Hs assumed that he spoke the sentiments of his con-
' etiteeste. They had heard • good deal of the necessity of
liwurgoila 'Walser seed • strong government, bat he wee

miry to find that on the first repetition that came before the
house somebody on the Treasury hunch did not agree with
somebody else there. (Cheers.) Were they going to have a
repetition of the old story—one member of the government
going into one lobby, end another member of Me sum go-
mamma going into the opposite lobby ?
_(Hear, hear.) This
WI was like the Church Rate Bill. You moat adopt the
principle ea a whole, and could not break or divide it.
(Hear.) His precis,e notion with regard to the bill was, that
it would not tine anything from the established church, and
that the eases in which it would make any change would be
few. That was oleo the epicion of the promoters of the bill.
The egmintemet of trustees sesta the hands of the bishops,
the Yep leaded_ proprietors and corporate bodies and as this
bill did not lethrfete with the pallier of appointing trustee.,
he believed that ten years hence it would be found that the
bill had meth little alteration. But it would do a great deal
by satisfying the dinenting elects throughout the country,
who felt that if the decteion of the Court of Chancery was
to be enstatned, they were denied the common right of chi-
' min (Haar, hen.) He hoped his honorable friend
would divide the 1301144, and would not accept the
enrgeetion of the right hon. gentleinan—(heir, her)—
and he hoped they were not going to see the
speclacle of any member of her Majesty's penmen sitting
en that bench and calling themselves a liberal government
veMag against the bill. (Loud cheers.)
air 0. GREY said the proposition of hie right hon.
friend (the Home Secretary) seemed a reasonable one.
(Hear, beer.) The whole course of the debate established
the feet, which was admitted en all sides, that a prection
grievance existed and that a remedy ought to be applied.
The bob. gentleman prop:wed to apply the remedy at once,
bath!' right hon. friend end be hesitated to dope the bill
without more inquiry into the preens nature and extent of
the grievance and the best mode of implying a remedy. The
, right hoe. gentleman opposite said the bill proposed to alter
the law of evidence on which the Court of Chancery seed,
but the bill, it should be observed, did not apply to
modern education, treat', but to ancient ones, someof which
, waisted before the Reformation, and othete et a remote period,
when the words " godly and honest," had but one meaning,
and when dissenters had no instates at all. The house hid
shown its willingness to support the claim of the dissenter.
on general grounds, but he doubted whether the bill in its
present form would effect the object contemplated. The only
question named to be whether they were to have inquiry be-
, fore they adopted the principle, or whether they should adopt
, the principle and then inquire. He thought the hon. gentle-
, man would adopt the best comae if he assented to the nig-
, gestion of his right hon. friend, but as there might be doubts
as to his views on the subject, if the hon. gentleman premed
, the bill to a round raiding Its would vote for it. (Ironical
cheers and laughter from the opposition.)
, Lord J. MANNERS said it was difficult to understand ,
, what the real opinion of the 'government wee, and what
P course they would rezommeed the hone to adopt. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a
distinction without a difference was commonly thought to be
bed thing; bat a division without a difference was much
. worn,. (" Hear, hear" and a laugh.) He might safely say
, there was a general concurrence on both aides of the hones on
this subject. The late Solicitor. General made a double state.
meth that the law required amendment; that, in his
j opinion, there ought to be set up some statutory affirmation
of the principles of usage as applicable to endowed
, schools end educational charities, and that in lieu
of the cumbrous, uncertain, absurd, and dangerous
; process, se it now stood, of providing what were
. called conecien.ce clauses some general provision should
, be established by the legislature. That was the amount of
admiesion on the other side, and on this side there was no
definite proposition beyond what wee contained in this bill.
The hon. member for Birmingham spoke of the neat nis-
i o iple of the bill, and said that the vote of the government
ought to be decided by the political doctrines en which they
were supposed to set. But he did not see the elements of
, party difference In the nee at all, there being a very general
concuirence of opinion between the speaker, who spoke on
that side of the home. When the coossion foe a division was
so trifling it appeared to hies to be important that they
; should not go to a division at all. On the one hand it was
admitted theta committee onghttobeappointed to inquire into
thembject ; on the other it was admitted that tea:mitts° ought
to be appointed to inquire into the bill. The hon. member
, for Birmingham said lot us inquire into the bill, for a great
many things can be done in committee on a bal. But in the
, can to which the hon. gentleman referred, the majority de-
' added that there greet many things should not be done in cam-
, mittee, and the bon. gentlemen formed one of that majority.
, (Loud cheers and laughter.) It was admitted that if they
, want into committee they mast mateelally alter the cha-
, mkt of the bill, and there was one important clause
, of which not one Important part was likely to stir-
. vies. (Inighter.) He could not bat Went, apart
j from the question of party politics, that there
, wee the greatest form in the oblectloe, that it wee a
, bad sad Incosivenient course to frame a bill end propose Its
Roma reading with a view of having its provisions con-
, sidered,when it was admitted that the result wee likely to be
a total alteration of its provisions. (Hear, hear.) On that
assent happened to him that the most convenient 0011,00
Sir allpieties would be to adopt the suggestion of hie right
, hoe. friend the Secretary of State, and that they would not
r be driven to the necessity of *tensing to deny legislation where
all admitted It wee necessary. If the question was pressed,
j however, it was his intention to divide with his right hon.
, hind in favour of a referenos to a select committee.

Mr. HENLEY said it seemed to be taken for granted that
the existence of a grievance was admitted. But he would
not adroit that without inquiry ; when the feet was aecer-
Coined be should then know how to act. (Hear.) The hon.
and learned gentlemen, in the course of the present seadoe,
gays three different verities* of his own bill, foe he Introduced
three different bills on the subject. No two lawyers agreed
as to shat the grievance was. He hoped the hon. sad
learned gentleman would adopt the suggestion of the right
hon. gentleman.
Mr. IHLLNYYN replied. He said he should be glad to
adopt any smendmtnt which would render the bill mere ac-
ceptable. Ile could not adopt the suggestion of the right
hon. gentleman. Ho desired to test her Majesty's govern-
ment on the assertion of a great principle, and the mode in
which they neted would determine whether they would have
hle hearty support or not.

The house then divided
For the second notelet
Against

Lord 1. MANNERS asked what mane the goverumeut
gamut to pursue with regard to the bill P
Sir C. LEWlS—Lastead of referring the bill to a com-
mittee of the whole house, he proposed that it be referred to
a select committee.

Mr. DILLWYN said that before he could agree to that ha
rhould like to know something of the composition of the
committee, whether they would inquire end take *Men"),
or merely dictum the rave which, they had already bikini
there, and whether the government would give facilities for
parsing the bill this session. He hoped the right hoe. gas-
tlnnus would postpone hie motion till to-morrow. (Hear.)
Sir C. LEWIS said he had no objection to the adjourn-
ment, bat as it was necessity, that the committee should be
nominated, the hon. gentleman would have an opportunity
of milting for the explanations he desired. It would be im-
possible for the government to state at that moment what
clauses they might propose; but a select committee would
have it in their power to remodel the bill and Insert new
clauses. (Hear.)
Mr. CONING HAM hoped the hon. member for Swerves
would adhere to Ma intention of postponing the subject till
to-morrow. The question was one of importance and prin-
ciple, and the liberal party should enter into no compromise.
Tito policy of the government with regard to it might infla-
mes v-to• hereafter.

Mr. BORSMAN thought the prayers' of the right hon.
gentleman took the hnn. member for Swansea by surprise,
and that hie moron, was somewhat irregular. The right
hon. gentleman took the bill ant of the hands of the has.
gentleman, sad flied a day for him. (Rear.)
Mr. BOUT ERIE thought the course suggested by his
right hon. friend was the one mat favourable to the hon.
member, and would interpose less delay in the progress of the

The SPEAKER asked whether the bon. member for
Swarteea bed movod tbsadjournmeot ?
Mr. DILLWYN said he begged to move that the hours
go into committee on the bill the nest day.
The SPEAKER said that the hoe. member, having
already spoke), was not then entitled to rinks a motion. but
11 by any misapprehension on his part, he had not beard the
ban. gentlemen move, he wee Me he was acting in wooed-
ante with the wiehes of the house in tasking him If he had
moved the adjournment.
Mr. HORSMAN (to Mr. Dillwyn)—No, you did not.
Mr. HADFIELD hoped the hoe. member for Swansea
would not abandon the charge of the bill. He begged to
move that the bones go into committee on the bill to-morrow.
The ISPBAKBR—Does the hon. member move the ad-
jotEamest P

Mr. Fiji/FIELD—Yes. (Laughter.)
Mr. 3. HARDY gays notice, that ou the motion for refer-
ring the bid to a select committee. he would move a general
fee dation relining the whole subject to a select committee
with • ♦lew to legielation on it.
The Indian foe the adjournment of the debate was than
to.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.

Oa tit;;;d-e;:;7llWdas'ylOt7tit'e;econ" ‘-‘.41-14;t17nsTort.hte bill,
Mr. lIPMAIION mid he felt himself in • difficulty in
moving the second reeding. He bad only about krty
minute" lilt before the adjournment. and he hod just been
informal that the government intended to oppose the wood
reading. The bill was exactly the same ea that which was
read • second time last erasion by • majority of 145 to
91, except that he had omitted ell parte which
were the objected to. If the government were determined
to oppose the bill, he could not hops to gain anything by
the mood roadies'., and would therefore take •
riviiremelait once. At present, a criminal unless tried in the
QUM'S Bench had no mean" of ramming mom, although
If them was the least technical error, such as
emitting the crossing of • "t" the indictment might be
gushed. The principle of the bill had been approval
by the Criminal Law Commission, and in 1844, Sir
Fitzroy Kelly had introduced • similar bill. At present say