The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-10 00:00:00

ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.

Lord CHAN WO wrii rose to move the second reading
of this bill, which was to enable Dissenters to take the
benefit of endowed schools, commonly called King
Edward's, from which they were at present excluded,
and also to act as trustees of these schools. The bill
was the same, with one exception, as that which had already
passed the committee of the House of Commons; and in
the event of their lordships according a second reading to
the bill, he should be able, be thought, to satisfy their
lordships of the great desirability of that alteration.
The noble and learned lord then explained the present po-
sition in which Protestant Dissenters stood with respect to
trust funds of endowed schools, and proceeded to give a
short history of the foundation of many of these schools,
which took place in the reign of Edward VI., from which
the children of all persons not in communication with the
Church of England were excluded from participating.
Lord CHELMSFORD said that the bill before their
lordships had certainly been explained by his noble and
learned friend in a clear and temperate manner which
merited all praise, and the measure appeared to him to b 3
of infinite importance. He had been extremely desirous of
presenting to their lordships' attention various questions
which appeared to him to be involved in the measure. It
would first be necessary that he should add a few details to
the history of his noble and learned friend of the attempts
at legislation on the subject, because they appeared to be a
necessary introduction to the understanding the measure
now submitted for their consideration. It had been gene-
rally supposed that the case of the Ilchester school first oc •
casioned the desire en the part of the Dissenters to obtain
some legislative enactment on the subject of endowed
schools, but he believed that prior to that decision there were
year after year various bills introduced from time to time
which met with no progress in the other house of Parlia-
ment. The Ilchester case no doubt awakened the Dissen-
ters to the awkward position in which they were placed, and
with their lordships' permission he would explain that de-
cision. The case of the school in question was this—ln the
reign of Edward VI. certain lands in the parish were given
to the inhabitants of the town for the purpose of promoting
godly learning, and the surplus, after the establishulent of
the school, was to be applied to the repair of the public
bridges and ways. The trustees were first of all the gran-
tees under the deed of the granter, and they were succeeded,
as the charter set forth, by other honest persons of the
parish. A grammer school was established and a number
of auxiliary schools for reading, writing, and arithmetic,
were fo'unded out of the surplus rents and profits of the
land. Some of them, he believed, had now been established
more than 200 years, and the children of Dissenters had
been admitted from a remote period to the grammar and the
auxiliary schools, and they were not required to attend ser-
vice at the church or learn the church catechism. True

tees had also been appointed from time to time, many of
whom were Dissenters, even down to the period when the
inquiry took place in the Court of Chancery. Under these
circumstances it was that an application was made to
the Master of the Rolls for a scheme for the appointment of
new trustees, and amongst them were Dissenters. The
Master of the Rolls was of opinion that, as the charity was
net merely for founding a grammar school, but also applied
a portion of its surplus funds towards the repair of public
roads and bridges, all the inhabitants of the parish were
entitled to the benefit of the charity, and therefore there
was nothing to exclude the Dissenters from being trustees.
The case afterwards came by appeal before the Lords Jus-
tices, and they in the first place expressed an opinion that
the primary object of the foundation was the establishment
of the grammar school, that "a grammar school for godly
learning" necessarily meant religious instruction, and that
looking therefore at the intention of the founder, their lord-
ships were of opinion that the religious instruction referred
to was religious instruction according to the doctrine of the
Church of England. They considered the repair of the
roads and bridges a secondary and subordinate object, that
the primary object might absorb the whole funds, and inas-
much as that was for promoting religious instruction Dis-
senters could not be trustees. He (Lord Chelmsford) 'did
not know whether his noble and learned friend meant, in
the observation he made, to impeach the accuracy of that
decision. He certainly must join in the expression of opinion
that it was very much to be regretted that this question had
ever beeh agitated in the courts. The decision in that case
opened the eyes of the Dissenters to the precarious situa-
tion in which they were plaoed. They discovered that the
privileges they supposei they possessed only existed on suf-
feranoe, and determined, if possible, to put an end to a state
of things so inconvenient to them ; bat in endeavouring to
do themselves justice they went too far, and endea-
voured to obtain a position which ought not, he contended,
to be conceded to them, and which, if conceded, would vio-
late some of the most sound principles of law. Shortly
after the Dchester case Mr. Diliwyn introduced a bill
into the House of Commons to remedy the grievance under
which the Dissenters were supposed to labour in this matter.
That measure was an exceedingly strong one, and when
his noble and learned friend said that it would have
made no alteration in the law, but was merely declaratory,
he must beg, however, to differ from him, and believed their
lordships would also be of opinion that it would have effected
.1---
clause of the bill enacted that no endtwed school should be
held to belong to the Church of England, nor any dissenter
be held to be trustee of or scholar in such school unless it
was expressly declared in the instrument of foundation.
Lord CRANWORTH intimated that it was not in the
bill of last 'session.

Lord CHELMSFORD—It was the bill that was sent up
to the select committee.

Lord CRANWORTH—No, that bill never went before
a select committee.

Lord CHELMSFORD had then had the wrong bill placed
in his hand, but he wanted to Slow what the views of the
Dissenters on the subject were. His noble and learned
friend said that the bill was merely declaratory ; but if so,
it was so unpalatable to the select committee of the House
of Commons, to whom it was referred, that they framed an
altogether different measure—so changing it, that it became
necessary to alter the preamble. He referred to the bill
which, as he understood, his noble and learned friend had
taken up in that house last session. (Hear, hear.) During
the present session Mr. Diliwyn had introduced another
bill, which pretty well indicated what was the object
which the Dissenters had in view. By that measure he
preposed that no endowed school or educational society
founded before the establishment of the Church of Eng-
land—that was before the Ist of Elizabeth—should be
deemed to be founded for the purpose of affording religious
instruction according to the doctrines of the Church of Eng-
land, although it might appear upon the face of the instru-
ment of endowment that it was expressly so established.
And then it proposed that every educational charity founded
subsequent to the Ist Elizabeth should not be held to be
founded for the purpose of affording such religious instruc•
tionrecording to the doctrines of the Church of England un
less it should appear in express terms to be so on the face of
the instrument of endowment. Now that, he submitted, was
a startling proposition. That bill was now before the house
of Commons, and he believed that yesterday his hon. and
learned friend the late Solicitor-General introduced his bill
founded wpon the report of the select committee, which was
also before the other house. And now his noble and learned
friend introduced his bill in their lordships' house, altering
the second clause of the other bill in the important particu-
lar which his noble and learned friend had explained. He
(Lord Chelmsford) should be as anxious as anybody that
where endowed schools had been established for the pur-
pose of religious instruction, but where it did not appear
distinctly on the face of the instrument of endowment, and
where the usage had been uniform for a long series of years,
and for same time Dissenters had been admitted to the
benefits of such schools, that the privilege they had
been:so permitted to enjoy should not be taken away
from them, and with that view he should be quite ready to
agree to any bill for carrying out that object, introducing
what were called conscience clauses. But his noble and
learned friend went infinitely further than that. By the
fourth clause it struck at the very root of all those rules of
prescription by which the greater part of the property of
this ccuntry was held. His noble and learned friend pro-
posed to get rid of prescriptive right, to treat usage for cen-
turies as of no avail, even though it were confirmed by judi-
cial decisions and legislative authority, unless in the instru-
ment regulating the endowment something was contained
expressly requiring that every child educated in the school
should bo instructed according to the formularies of the
Church of England, His noble and learned friend had said
that there were 699 of these endowed schools, and he (Lord
Chelmsford) would venture to say that in the great ma •
jority of them there was no intimation expressed in the in-
strument of endowment that the religious instruction to be
given was to be of any particular character, although there
could be no doubt, from the circumstances of the endow-
ment, from the persons endowing, and from continual
usage, that the intention was that religious instruction
should be given according to the doctrines of the Church of
England. Take, for instance, the grammar schools of
Edward VI., all of which were established, by a general
act, to promote sound religious education, governors being
appointed to regulate and manage, to order and control the
schoolmaster under the superintendence and sanction of
the bishop of the diocese. In none of these was there an?
distinct statement that the religious instruction was
~ to
be according to the doctrines of the Church of Eng-
land, though from the arrangements as to ma-
nagement and supervision it was obvious that that was
what was intended. Referring to the Chelmsford, Sherwood,
and Stafford schools, which had been alluded to, an arrange-
ment was suggested by which the children of Disenters, who
had been in the habit of attending these schools, should be
permitted to do so without being compelled to go to church
or to receive instruction in the catechism. And in cases
where Dissenters had• been in the habit of attending such
schools, there might be fair ground for introducing legisla-
tive interference, enacting that while the present instruc
tion should be in accordance with the doctrines of the
Church of England, the privileges which Dissenters had
been accustomed to enjoy should be secured to them. Their
lordships were aware that there were many schools which,
commencing with a very small endowment, gradually in-
creased by means of donations given by charitable and reli-
gious persons on the faith that such schools wore connected
with the Church of England ; but in the terms of endowing
which no particular religious instruction was mentioned as
that which shouldbe taught. His noble and learned friend's
bill disregarded the right of prescription with regard to all
these schools (hear, hear), and drew them all into his nets.
Another point, the right rev. prelate had that night pre-
sented a petition from the National Education Society,
complaining that unless some express exceptions were in-
troduced, all the schools in connection with that society
might be included within the operation of this bill. He
should like to know from his noble and learned friend whe-
ther it was intended to include those schools ? It
was stated that the bill was to apply to charitable
endowments of the nature referred to. Now, he should
like to be informed what was the meaning of the words
charitable endowments as here used. He wished to ask,
supposing, as in the case of the National Society, a mas-
ter's house or school were built, would that be included in
the term charitable endowments under this measure ? In
the case of the national schools there was no restraint on
endowment. The schools had originated with the National
Society, and had been from to time enlarged. If his noble
and learned friend meant to include national schools in. the

operation of the act, he did in a most extraordinary manner
violate every principle by which property in this country
sly protected, and introduced a measure fraught with the
most mischievous consequences—not only in this particular
instance, but in every case which involved the rights of
-property. His noble and learned friend said that these
schools were wholly supported by voluntary contribUtions,
but that was not the fact, as the children made a small pay-
ment which went towards the maintenance of the schools.
He agreed so far with his noble and learned friend that he
would allow Dissenters to enjoy those rights which they
had possessed before the passing of the act, and he thought
it would be infinitely better by a legislative measure
to settle this important question at once than to delay
its settlement, but ho objected very strongly to the intro-
duction of a conscience clause, and to leave such a matter
to the decision of any judge of Court of Chancery. He
objected to a reference to a judge of that court, or to the law
officer, because, though he might entirely rely upon them
at the present time, he was obliged to look to the future, and
to anticipate a period when both might be Dissenters. He
had very few words to say with reference tothe constitution
of the governing bodies of these schools. The object of the
Dissenters' Chapel Bill was not to enable dissenters to ex-
ercise a trust, but to give them possession of those charities
which they had enjoyed uninterruptedly for a long series of
years, but which it was endeavoured to take away from them
because the doctrines and opinions they entertained were
different from those of the founders. The principle of our
courts of law was that wage within the memory of man
was a sufficient proof of usage time out of mind, and if pers
sons holding these opinions had held a charity for 25 years
they were allowed to keep possession of it. But where the
managers of a school had been members of the Church of
England for a series of years, it was too much for Dissenters
to come forward and say that they were entitled to appoint
trustees. It was too much for them to claim prescription for
themselves and deny it for the Church. He did nut object
to the second reading of the bill, although he believed that
it would be impossible to induce his noble and learned friend
to adopt in committee the views he had suggested, as they
would have the effect of making it an entirely new bill, but
if any noble lord thought it his duty to move a negative to
the second reading he should feel bound to support him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR sincerely hoped that their
lordships would see no serious objections to the second read-
ing of the bill. The facts of the case were simply these.
The children of Dissenters were not permitted to participate
in the benefits of endowed schools, and Dissenters were not
allowed any influence in the conduct of those institutions.
Mr. Dillwyn's bill, which was introduced in the other house
for the purpose of dealing with this question, was referred to
a select committee, which was most fairly nominated. The
church was represented by Sir Hugh Cairns, who was a
great credit to the party to whom he belonged. The bill
was suerseded by an entirely new bill which the committee
framed, and to which Sir H. Cairns gave his full assent.
This bill was reported to the House of Commons and al-
though complaints were made both on the part of Dissenters
and Churchmen, it was generally approved of. This was
the bill 'Which Lord Cranworth introduced at the close of
last session in that house, and which he now introduced
with the exception of an alteration of the second clause.
Was this measure to be thrown out in a summary manner,
or would not their lordships rather agree to the second read-
ing, on the understanding that aileple time would be given
for discussing all its details ? lie would not follow his noble
and learned friend (Lord Chelmsford) in his observations
upon the various clauses, but he must say that he had
treated those who were concerned in framing the bill and
Sir H. Cairns in a rather cavalier manner. His language to-
wards them had assumed a tong of censure ; hut much as he
(the Lord Chancellor) respected the noble and learned lord,
he had as much respect for Sir II Cairns, who he thought W4B
well calculated to draw the bill. He therefore hoped their lord-
ships would agree to the second reading of the bill, the prin-
ciple of which was to allow the children of Dissenters to have
a reasonable use of endowed schools, and in some cases to
enable Dissenters themselves, under the sanction of the
Court of Chancery, to have a share in the management of
these schools. When the endowments were made the whole
people were of one religion, and all children equally partici•
pated in them, but now, in many instances, a great majority
of the middle and lower classes did tot belong to the Esta-
blished Church, and they were deprived of the benefits which
were originally intended for them by the donors. He be-
lieved that if the donors were now living, they would most
graciously concur in the proposal for allowing that portion
of the community to participate in the endowments.
The Earl of CARNARVON said, that as a division
would not, in the present state of the house, be productive of
any satisfactory result, he was forced to let the bill be read
a second time ; and his only object in rising was to protest
against the issue which the Lord Chancellor had just pre-
sented to their lordships. They were asked to agree to the
second reading on the ground that the objections urged to
the bill were not objections to the principle, but to details.
He denied that was so. The objections were those of prin-
ciple and not of detail. He admitted that the bill as drawn
by the select committee was a compromise; but although
he did not admire the compromise he was willing to accept
it as it came to them, but he could not accept itwith the in-
sertion of a clause which was repugnant to its whole sense
and a violation of the principle on which it was founded.
With regard to the application of the measure, it would in
some cases be very unjust indeed. He would not go into the
matter further, but merely state that if the bill passed as it
now stood it would deal with schools both of secular and re-
ligious instruction, and in many cases from the moment dis-
senters accepted the office of trustees would discord and ill-
feeling arise. He wished the house had been in a different
position, but seeing its present state he would not propose
any amendment. (Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of LONDON said that before their lordships
proceeded to pass the, second reading of this bill they should
clearlysanderittand the principle of it, and that depended
very much upon the number of schools it applied to. If the
bill was passed in its present form no less than 5,000 schools
would be included in its operation, and in those would be
included all schools with endowments of from £5 to £lO a-
year. If the noble and learned lord did not intend to include
these schools he should state it distinctly and clearly, but as
the bill stood it included the Charterhouse School and Har-
row School and others.

Lord CRANWORTH—No, no.
The Bishop of LONDON—He felt convinced that there
wills a certain amount of indefiniteness as to what number of
schools the bill applied, and the doubt should be cleared up,
imthotill would haveseference.to a rreatolart of.the educa-
tion of the country. He thought it would be well to have a
further explanation before the second reading was agreed
to. '

The Earl of DERBY said this discussion had plainly
shown that the- subject was surrounded with difficulties,
end that it was of the greatest importance, and he should
be sorry if their lordships came to a hasty decision. On
the one hand, there had been a certain amount of
grievances which had arisen from the unexpected
interpretation of the law as it stood at present. and an hon.
member in the other house had introduced two bills which
would not have remedied but would have added to those
grievances. The last bill referred to was Sent to a select
committee which comp-ised several of the most distinguished
members of the other house. and it was there carefully and
dispassionately considered; and while, ou the one hand,
their lordships would not allow their judgments to be guided
by the decisions of that committee, more especially as those
decisions were not subjected by the judgment of the house
itself, yet, on the other hand, it would not be giving due
courtesy to that committee if their lordships, upon the se-
cond reading, rejected this bill, which proceeded upon the
recommendation of that committee. The noble and learned
lord had, however, introduceda very material clause, which
did not proceed upon any recommendationof the committee;
and he (the Earl of Derby) could not say that the bill was
any better for the clause, but that it was open to very serious
abjection. It was very desirable that their lordships should
have the opportunity of considering the measure in all its
parts in connexion with the existing law upon the subject and
the altered circumstances of the country at this time as com-
pared with the period when these schools were introduced.
It appeared fr im the statement of the noble and learned lord
that at no very distant period the Court of Chancery had been
in the habit of framing schemes in which was inserted what
was called theconscience clause—the schools were carried on
upon the principles of the Church of England, and certain
services were to be performed ; but if the parents of chil-
dren who were Dissenters objected to the doctrines of the
Church, they were admitted to receive instruction, but not
compelled to learn those doctrines. It subsequently ap-
peared that it was not competent to the court to follow that
practice, and it was now sought by this bill to enable the
Court of Chancery to make some modifications in the exist-
ing law, so that in certain cases the children of Dissenters
might be, admitted to these schools without being compelled
to learn the formularies and doctrines of the Church of Eng-
land. At no very distant periods similar alteration had been
made in reference to the Universities of Oxford and Cam-
bridge. In that case Dissenters had beenadmitted to receive
edudation without their being compelled to attend upon
divine service. The difficulties of this bill would apply to
the great bulk of national schools, which no doubt had small
endowments; but it was not clear whether, in any applica-
tion to the Court of Chancery, the schools should bear the
expense. He thougnt that in all schools which were evi-
dently intended for the instruction of persons according to
the doctrines of the Church of England they should ascer-
tain whether they could, consistently with the intentions of
the founders, admit Dissenters to the benefits of those
schools. In his opinion it Whe fortunate that the Court of
Chancery had been prevented from acting as it had dune in
former times. Still he entertained very considerable doubts
whether the Court of Chancery was the best tribunal to re-

fer cases of this kind to. There was nothing to guide the
court in the matter, and the decision of the chancellor
would depend upon the state of his mind, and probably in
one case Dissenters would be admitted and in another they
might be excluded. He would now point to the conscience
clause as introduced in this bill, and observe that it went
beyond the law as laid down by the Lord Justice Knight
Bruce, because he laid down that in these schools, children
belonging to the Church of England were to be instructed in
the doctrines of the Church, and taken to the Church services,
but upon the application of Dissenters from the Church to
have their children admitted to the general benefits of the
school, excel Lions were made in their case. But if their
lordships looked at this conscience clause, it would be seen
that the Lord Chancellor had power, and might think fit to
ray down other rules which would prevent boys, from going
through the course of education intended by the founders.
He would not say anything about the expense of the appli-
cations to the court being paid out of these small endow-
ments, but he apprehended that in many cases the proceed-
ings would absorb all the endowments of the founders. He
would much rather give a larger discretion to the trustees,
to enable them to exempt certain children under certain
circumstances from those particular regulations on educa-
tion. He would rather prefer a discretion of that kind than
giving a discretion to the court to make rules and regula-
tions which would be absolutely binding upon,the trustees.
He would not now discuss the matter further, but merely
add that it would require the serious attention of their
lordahips, especially that clause of the noble and learned
lord's which would enable all persons under all circum-
stances to be eligible for trustees of schools. Their lordships
would have to take care that no undue influence would be
exorcised by the Dissenting trustees, and that the schools
of the Church of England should not ultimately fall into
the hands of Dissenters. This was a bill to be considered
in detail, and it ought not to be rejected on the second
reading. He would invite the right rev. bench to give
their best attention to the measure, and to take into their
consideration all the real grievances which existed, and
Parliament bhould sanction a bill which would consult
feelings and interests of the community, and bind all classesh
together in hrsrmony. (Hear, hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE said the bill would have to be weiltl
considered in committee, and the questiorn
comse whether
before the
should be referred to a select committee °
whole house. He agreed to a great extent with what had
fallen from the most noble lords opposite with reference to
the Court of Chancery. At the same time he did not think
it fair to anticipate evils, or to cast a slur upon a Dissenter in
case he should reach the high post of Lord Chancellor, seeing
that the Lord Justice Knight Bruce, though a churchman,
had acted fairly towards the dissenters.
.11e thmkght there
should be an exception in the bill of national schools. He
thought more might be defined in the bill, and less left to the
discretion of the court. If they provided by the bill what
schools should be subject to its provisions, they would not
have so much judge-made law, and thus they would save
eat expense in applications, which would otherwisehaveto
wade to the Attorney-General and the Court of Chancery.

This would be a fit subject for the committee. (Hear, hear.)
If dissenters were to be excluded from these schools it vrtrukt
be a great injustice. With regard to the seventh ciente,
much was to be said on both sides. It might be a question
for the committee, whether they adopted his noble and.
learned friend's clause, or adopted the House of Commons'
c'ause. *With these observatione-be was glad to find that
the house intended to give a, second reading to the bill, and
he would leave entirely to the noble and learned lord tke
suggestions he had made. ' •
The Bishop of OXFORD said, if it were understood that
• in not resisting the second reading of the bill no further prin-
fciple wasriuvolved than, as stated by the noble and learned
lord opporsite, the house was endeavouring to meet an ac-
knowledged grievance by legisletion which should not trench
upon the rights of Church schools, then he for one should.
rather wish that the bill should be read a second time, be-
cause he was always anxious to extend to their nonconfornaist
brethren the greatest amount of kindness and charity con •
sistent with maintaining.his own principles. He felt that
so strongly that he had always in his diocese recommended
managers of the schools allowing much latitude, but there
was a difference between the managers of the schools in their
discretion allowing such latitude, and the Legislature giving-
a legal right to it. Ile should himself, for instance, not
be at all prepared to admit that in the gteat number of
national schools with, bona fide endowments—Church of
England schools—that in those schools there should be a
legal right for dissenters to be admitted. lie believed that
in almost every parish the establishment of a barren prin-
ciple of that sore would lead.to litigation and expense, and
that in parish after parish, in which otherwise amity would
prevail there would be ill-will. If the tense, then, were to
understand that they did, not commit themselves to any
principle beyond that, then he was glad to have the bill
read a second time; not that he for a moment admitted
that in the conscience clause, or the' clause as it stood in the
bill in the other house of Parliament, there was not involved
a different principle, and one to which he could not assent.
He meant the principle of changing vast numbers of what
were truly intended to be and had been administered as
church schools into what would be church schools no longer.
He thought he did not form any very uncharitable opinion
en this matter because he found that one of the Dissenters
to the Established Church, whom he always respected for
the openness with which he declared his hostility to the
Established Church, shared that opinion with him. He
found that Mr. Miall, speaking at a meeting of the Libera-
tion Society, as it was cale I, u • I these words We,
the Dissenters from the Church, are making a deadly
thrust on the principle of an Established Church in what
we are endeavouring to gain in these endowed schoola.o
Now, surely they could not be thought to be unnaturally
jealous of the effect of this legislation when those who told
them they wished, to overturn the Established Church told
them they were aiming a deadly thrust at the Established
Church by that bill. If they were to admitin any way that
the education in Clutch of England schools was to be taken
out of the hands of the Church of England and put into
other hands, then he said the bill ought not to be passed by
their lordships; but if it were, as had been said, to redress
an admitted grievance by plans which compromised no prin-
ciple, then he for one should be prepared to agree to the
second reading of the bill. He suggested that the best inky
would be to refer the bill to a select committee, not to take
evidence, but to arrange the terms of the bill. It was essen-
tially a. matter of detail, and in discussing those details bp-
fore the house, an incautious word might cause an unkindly
feeling somewhere.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he hoped his noble
and teamed friend would take time to consider whetherehe
would refer the bill to a select committee or to a committee
of die-whole house. He thought there were manyadian-
tages in referring it to a select committee.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE asked why Ireland was
excepted from. the operation of the bill.
Lord CRANWORTH said the system of education was
very different. in Ireland. A suggestion had been made
that the national schools should be exempted. Substantially
the national schools were not endowed schools, except that
a house was provided for the master, or something of that
kind.
The bill was read a second time.