The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-06 00:00:00

NEW MEMBER.

NAVY.
On the motion of Mr. BRAND the following returns
were ordered :—Return of the number of screw ships and
vessels of her Majesty's navy afloat on the Ist day' of
February in the years 1855 and 1858. Return of the ships
and vessels added to the navy between the 31st
day day of March, 1858, and the Ist day of June,
1859, distinguishing those which were added in accord-
ance with the general scheme of works for the year,
and those which were added in consequence of subsequent
orders; and also of the frigates and sloops which would
have been launched according to the general scheme in
works for 1858-9, but which were deferred on account of
the men being removed to convert ships of the line. Return
of the sums voted, and of the sums expended for wages of
the dockyard in the years 1857-8, and 1858-9 ; showing in
the latter year the sum, inserted in the original, in the re-
vised and supplemental estimate.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.
Mr. DI LLWYN moved the second reading of thisbill. The
hon. member having adverted to the importance of this sub-
ject as shown by the number of petitions presented from
every part of the country both for and against the bill, said
there were no less than 30,000 schools in the kingdom,
with an income of not much less than £1,500,000. He de-
nied that the bill proposed to wrest any legitimate power
from the Church of England to which it was justly entitled
in reference to scholastic endowments, and. where the
wishes of the different founders, relative to religious and
secular education were clearly expressed. To prove that
he had no views hostile to the State establishment, he men-
tioned that he did not approve the bill brought forward in
the House of Lords last session for the admissions Dissen-
ters to the trusteeship of these charitable foundations, be-
cause he did not see what right they had to enjoy such
trusts in all cases. He contended that in some cases the
church interfered improperly in enforcing attendance at
church on children attending these grammar schools, where
the founders had not specifically enjoined teaching in ac-
cordance with the Church of England. In many instances
it was provided that the Church of England doctrines
should be taught, and when there was no such provision it
was to be inferred that the founders did not feel strongly
in favour of any specific religious teaching. In illustration
of the case with which these endowments were framed he
cited the instance of a grammer school in Winchester, in
which the founder directed that the schoolmaster should
not be a Welshman, a Scotchman, an Irishman, a foreigner,
or a north countryman, in order that scholars might not be
taught ' a vicious pronunciation. (Laughter.) He
next alluded to the grammar school at Ilmin-
ster which had excited a considerable interest,
and which was the latest case relating to the sub-
ject at present. It appeared that the school in question
was founded by two persons in. the reign of Edward the
6th, who directed that the trust should be administered by
God-fearing persons ; and for the last 150 years such trus-
tees were composed of Church of England members and
Dissenters. However, the matter was brought before the
Master of the Rolls by the vicar of the parish, and Sir
John Romilly decided that 15 trustees should be appointed,
12 of whom were to be members of the Church of England'
and three Dissenters, increasing the latter to six. How-
ever, that decision was appealed against, and the Dissenters
were removed from the trust. He considered that that was
a state of things of which Dissenters had good reason to
complain. He maintained that they were bound to render
those institutions as beneficial for the purposes of education
as possible, and his bill merely proposed to admit Dissenters
to the benefits of these schools, except in such cases where they
were expressly left for the purposes of the members of the
Church of England alone. The educational vote was a
very important item in the public expenditure, and of late
years had doubled by last year no less than £663,000, and
they should remember that the Dissenters were one-half of
the whole population. He would ask the house whether it
was politic, just, or in accordance with the spirit of reli-
gious freedomto exclude such a number of their fellow-
subjects, which, as a Protestant and warmly attached to
theinterests of the Church, he deemed her Majesty's
Government ? The hon. member concluded by an earnest
appeal to the house to pass the bill.
second
mtimoveertohinsthdeaytetrpeeeramteonntehnsn.
erHine
Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved as an amendment that the
complimentedbereada the bdi
which he had brought the bill forward, but at "the same
time he felt bound to oppose it, after careful attention to
the subject. He did not see how the bill could be operative,
considering the functions which the Court of Chancery as -
sumed. He thought the measure was calculated to act
veryinjuriously in different ways, and amongst
others it would give rise to mischievous
litiga-
tion. The effect also would be that it would
super-
sede
one state of things without supplying any
substitute, and that it would secularise these
schools. He contended, in conclusion, that the effect of
the
bill would be to diminish the efficiency of the schools, and
therefore inflict a material injury on the country.
Mr. B'U'LLER opposed the bill. When an erroneus im-
pression prevailed amongst Dissenters that according to the
decision in the Court of Chancery, they were not
regarded by those tribunals as " honest men" in refer-
ence to these trusts, he was not surprised at the number of
petitions presented in favour of this bll. The fact was this,
the Court of Chancery put a cos struction on a deed only
in
when there was any ambiguity the expressions of the
founders, and when the construction of the language was as
close to the meaning of the words at the time of the diawing
up of the instrument as possible. He alluded to a speech
delivered by Mr. Maill, in which that gentleman stated that
the present measure would be a deadly blow at the State
Church, and made some remarks to show the feeling enter-
tained by Dissenters on the subject. He denied that in
influenced
by a deed the Court of Chancery were
by religious considerations, and maintained that they
were influenced solely by what they considered to be the
intention of the founder. However, it must be considered
that secular education without religion wasimperfect; and
the Court of Chancery was bound to recognise as religious
instruction the teaching of a State Church. Suc
reli h
.bT.ng
the case, practically there could be no perfect gions
equality so long as there was a State Church. This
bill proposed to extend the benefits of those founda-
tions, but would it have that effect—or would the substi-
tution of any other system of religion in these
schools prove more beneficial ? There was some
difference of opinion as to the number of Dissenters, but he
would assume that they were as numerous as they were
represented, still it could not be denied that the Church of
In this
England was more numerous than any other sect it
country. The result of the bill therefore would even
an ua
he
lead to the adoption of a secular education solely, d
believed the great mass of dissenters would prefer the pre-
sent system to such an alteration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that legisla-
tion on the present subject was necessary, and that the
i _
Court of Chancery in the construction of the ntention. of
the founder of these schools proceeded on a false assumption
—namely, that these shools belonged to the members of thee
Church of England alone, in the first instance. T
show that the law proceeded on the principle he had men-
tioned he alluded to the case of the Chelmsford
School, in which, with some other law officers, be
whichend
a-
voured to have a clause introduced in the deed by
the children of Dissenters would not be instructed accord-
ing to the doctrines of the Church of England if their
guardians signified in writing to the head master of the
school that it was opposed to their wishes. However, they
were not able to carry out that liberal provision in conse-
quence of the erroneous assumption to which he alluded.
He believed the most politic course the Church
of England could adopt would be to throw open
the doors of those schools as wide as possible for the ad-
mission of Dissenters to their advantages. Considering
their greater numbers, the members of the Church of Eng-
land had nothing to apprehend if they acted in this way.
Having alluded to the case of the Ilminster school, as a
proof of the defective state of the law, he concluded by
supporting the second reading of the bill, on the under-
standing that the language would be so altered as to carry
out fully the intentions of the hou. mover. (Hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS supported the amendment. Tho pre-
sent bill would not meet such cases as that of Ilmmster
school, while it would produce many instances of what was
to be most strongly reprehended. It would be the Means
of diverting the benevolence of certain persons to an object
different to their intentions, for many of the smaller endow-
ments had been enlarged from time to time by liberal
donations from those who contributed solely in conse-
quence of the identity of the schools with
the Church of England in regard to doctrine. (Hear,
hear,) In interpreting the intention of a founder
of a charitable endowment, the Court of Chancery proceeded
in the same way that it did with reference to other matters..
That Court too into account the signification of certain
terms used in. deeds at the time they were drawn up, and
eurrounding circumstances connected with them that were
calculated to throw a light on their correct construction.
they attempted any alteration in reference to these founds.lf

Lord HENLEY took the oaths and his seat for North-
ampton in the room of Mr. Vernon Smith, raised to the
Upper House.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.
Mr. MELLOR supported the second reading of the bill.
Sir G. C. LEWIS considered the question was not ripe
for legislation, as the house was not in possession of the
information necessary to enable hon. members to come
to a correct conclusion on a matter of so much importance.
He suggested that the subject should be referred to a select
committee into the grounds on which the Court of Chan-
cery proceeded in construing the deeds of these charitable
foundations.

Mr. A. MILLS had no objection to going into committee
with a view to make certain alterations in the bill.

Sir E. PERRY supported the second reading.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the principle of this bill would,
if adopted, effect an alteration in the law of evidence, and
that not with regard to.all classes, but to one particular
class. The bill was most objectionable, and he contended
that the Court of Chancery had decided with regard to
these trusts only on the best evidence they could obtain
derived from the circumstances surrounding these deeds at
the time of their execution.
Mr. WALTER considered that the bill instead of re-
dressing one grievance would inflict a great number of
grievances, and he trusted the subject would be referred to
a select committee.
Mr. BRIGHT believed that the bill might be made a
very good measure in committee. He thought the speech of
the Attorney-General conclusive on this point, and he only
just perceived that the name of that hon. and learned gen-
tleman was on the back of the bill. They had heard a
great deal about strong Governments, and the necessity of
union among Ministers, and he hoped, notwithstanding the
difference of opinion expressed by the Home Secretary, that
they would not witness the spectacle of two Ministers goiig
into a different lobby onthis subject. (Laughter.) Rethought
that this bill would affect only a few cases, and would not
interfere with the great mass of educational trusts in this
country. He hoped that a member of a liberal Ministry
would not oppose a measure like the present.
Sir G. GREY agreed with the suggestion of the Home
Secretary, and considered that the subject should be referred
to a select committee. He thought such committee should
be for the purpose of inquiry into the educational teaching
in certain charitable trusts in England.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that a distinction without
a difference was generally considered absurd, but it
would be more absurd to have a division with
out a difference. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen on
both sides of the house seemed to be agreed as to the
principle in discussion. The late Solicitor-General had
admitted that the law required amendment. Some hon.
members considered that there should be a commission to
inquire into the subject, and others that there should
be a committee to inquire into the bill, so that practi-
cally there was very little difference between them. It
was also admitted that if the bill went into committee it
must be materially altered. He approved of the suggestion
of the Home Secretary, and denied that in any difference
expressed at this side of the house there was any party
principle involved. He repeated that he approved of the
suggestion of the Home Secretary, by which he would
abide.

Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill.
Mr. DILLWYN replied. He said he would press for a
division, and the vote given by the Ministry would influ-
ence his future conduct in supporting them or not. (Hear.)
The house divided, and the numbers were—

For the second reading .. 210
Against it
Majority -18
The announcement was received with loud cheers.
The bill was then read a second time.

Lord J. MANNERS enquired what course Government
roposed to pursue with regard to the future course of this
kill?

Sir G. C. LEWIS proposed that the bill should be re-
ferred to a select committee, and made a motion to that
effect.

Mr. DILLWYN considered that the bill could be fully
discussed by the house, and wished that some promise was
given that no impediment would be thrown in the
way of the bill. He had no objections to have
the bill referred to a select committee, but would prefer that
the motion of the right hon gentleman was postponed till
to-morrow, in order to give him time for consideration.
After some conversation the debate, on the motion of the
Home Secretary, was adjourned till to-morrow.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. M'MAHON moved the seeond reading of this bill.
He explained that the object of the bill was to enable the
Court of Queen's Bench to grant a new trial, when a case
was removed by certiorari, after trial as well as before.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the bill, which
he concluded would be prejudicial instead of beneficial to a
prisoner.
Mr. LOUGHFIELD moved the adjournment of the de-
bate, and urged on the house to agree to the second reading
which, however, he admitted was susceptible of amend-
ment.
The debate was then adjourned.

HIGH SHERIFF'S EXPENSES.
This bill was read a second time.
The house adjourned at six o'clock.

NEWMARKET RACES.-(THIS DA Y. )

[BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.]
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SOVS.

Brine
Asphodel

MATCH—Ada beat Haridan.
TOWN PLATE.

North Lincoln

Luff
SWEEPSTAKES OF 100 SOVS.

Magnum
Qui Vive

Three ran.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SON'S.

Twang
Cloak filly .....
Dapple .................................
£5O HANDICAP PLATE.
Bastion. .....

Dame Alice ..
King of the Gipsies...

Six ran.

LATEST BETTING.
CHESTERFIELD STARES.
2to 1 agst Trovatore (offered)
9 to 4 agst Madame Eglantine (offered)
10 to 1 agst Seclusion (taken)

CARLISLE RACES-(THIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH•)

LOTTERY STAKES.

Daniel
Miss Stewart
Lottery
Shafto

.4

The following paid forfeit:—Howth, Little Agnes;
Hegira, Trabuco, and Greystock.