tution within that parish. The possible mischiefs which the Bill was intended to remedy had not occurred in many places, though in some quarters they had arisen; and it was most desirable that Parliament should interfere before they became at all serious. Nobody who was at all conversant with the discipline and management of such schools as Harrow, Rugby, or of the proprietary colleges formed in different parts of England, could deny that it was desirable for them to have chaplains of their own, unfettered by the responsibilities resting on those charged with the spiritual superintendence of the parish. The experience of the late Dr. Arnold abundantly estab lished how valuable an adjunct the private chapel was to the beneficial influences of the school; and his view had been confirmed by that of almost every other head master. There were institutions also, besides schools, such as almshouses, penitentiaries, and others of a charitable nature, to which similar considerations applied; and of those, therefore, cognizance was taken by the present Bill, which proposed, instead of leaving the chaplain subject to the authority or caprice of the incumbent of the parish, to place him directly under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese, to whom, and to whom alone, he would then be responsible. For the parochial system he entertained the deepest respect, and he never would do anything to weaken the practical working of the system; but the Bill, so far from interfering with the system, only legitimately extended it. All this Bill contemplated, as the House would see, was that institutions of the nature indicated, when a chapel connected with them was licensed, should be withdrawn from the parochial authority, and made, as it were, an ecclesiastical district under the immediate jurisdiction of the bishop. The Church Building Acts contained a provision authorizing, under certain circumstances, a district to be formed even without the consent of the incumbent. That, however, was an extreme course, which he did not propose to adopt. His proposal was that when the trustees of an existing institution applied to the bishop, stating the nature of the institution and the circumstances under which the chaplain was to be appointed, the bishop, if he thought fit, and not otherwise, might issue his licence, whereupon for all the purposes mentioned in Clause 3; namely, the cure of souls within the institution, the sole right of preaching, performing Divine serVOL. CLXXX. [THIRD SERIES.] vice, and administering the Holy Communion-the institution would become an ecclesiastical district. He had received many communications from heads of Colleges and others in positions of authority in favour of this Bill; and the advantages of putting an end to the uncertainty entailed by changes of incumbents must be obvious, bearing in mind that though one incumbent might consent to the performance of Divine service in an institution within the parish, his opinions were in no way binding on his successor. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.”(Mr. Lygon.) MR. REMINGTON MILLS, in moving an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months, said, the speech of the hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him that the Bill ought to receive the sanction of the House. He admitted that the provisions of the present Bill were different from those of last year, but the object appeared to be the sainenamely, that these schools should be under the control of bishops of the Church of England. The classical and mathematical education given in many of these schools was open to pupils of all persuasions; but if they were compelled to attend religious service on the Lord's Day the children of Dissenters would be deprived of the advantage of attending these schools. In many of these schools the boys were not sufficient to form a congregation, and it would be very hard to deprive the master of the opportunity he now enjoyed of assisting clergymen in the neighbourhood in the performance of Divine service. In the greater portion of these schools the pupils lived in the town with their parents, and it was the duty of the parents to take them to their own places of worship. Nor could he see the advantage of compelling the children to attend a chapel in or connected with the school, with all its associations of the rod and tasks, &c. The Bill placed these chapels under the superintendence of the bishops, yet they were told that the bishops were overworked, and that a dozen new bishops would not be too many. A Commission had recently been appointed to inquire into these endowed schools, and it would be quite time to consider this subject when Parliament was called upon to legislate in regard to these schools. No one had petitioned for the Bill, and he begged to move, that it X be read a second time that day three nor with the various interests which had months. MR. HADFIELD seconded the Amendment. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."-(Mr. Remington Mills.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." grown up around them. But with respect to schools of the kind to which he had alluded, he thought that the circumstances of the case called for legislation; and, as his hon. Friend had justly pointed out, although it was possible that the particular incumbent of the parish might work har moniously with the chaplain or master of these institutions, yet it was equally pos sible that his successor might hold different MR. WALTER said, that as his name views and might raise formal objections to was on the back of the Bill he should like the religious services of the institution. It to state the views which had induced him was essentially necessary that some provito place it in so prominent a position. It sion for the religious services of such large appeared to him that his hon. Friend who schools should be made, for the parish had charge of this Bill, and the hon. Gen- church might not afford the requisite ac. tleman who opposed the second reading commodation. A new church would be (Mr. Remington Mills), were acting on necessary, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. different grounds. So far as he was con- R. Mills) would not be in favour of building cerned, he had never contemplated the it by means of a church rate. Church acschools to which the hon. Member had just commodation, however, of some kind the alluded. He considered this Bill as a pro- pupils of such an institution must have, spective rather than a retrospective mea- and how were they to get it except by masure. He happened to know that a mea- chinery of this description? But did the sure of this kind was required on principles hon. Gentleman think that every clergyof justice. It was well known that there man of a parish-that any haphazard inwas a great want at the present day of cumbent, who might perhaps be seventy large public schools for the education of a years of age-was a fit person to admiclass of persons who could not afford the nister religious instruction to 500 boys? expense of going to the large old educa- Clearly not, and the hon. Gentleman would tional establishments. Many benevolent be the last person to make such an asserpersons had combined to establish schools tion. He was sure that if a Dissenting of that character. Acting upon the de- College were to be established the hon. nominational principle, which was the go- Gentleman would be the first person to verning principle of education in England, demand that adequate means should be they wished to connect their school with afforded, such as were provided by the Bill the religious denomination to which they for the religious instruction of members of belonged, and in the case contemplated by the Established Church. He asked for this Bill that denomination happened to be nothing more for the Church than what the Church of England. Take the case the Dissenters would enjoy without quesof persons wishing to found schools for tion. The clergyman of the parish might 400 or 500 boys upon some site not within be a very good man, but, on the other or near a town. They thought a country hand, he might be utterly unfit to have site best for the health of the boys; they any control over an institution of this kind, bought the land cheap in a rural district and they founded a large institution. But the moment they began to build a chapel, or to provide for the religious services of the institution, the clergyman of the parish might step in, and control and upset their arrangements. He believed that the Wellington College was one of the most important institutions founded in modern times; yet the clergyman of the parish in which it was situated had the right to step in and interfere with the religious arrangements of the College. He, for one, did not desire to interfere with the status quo of the old endowed schools of the country, and such institutions ought therefore to be looked upon as extra-parochial places and put under the charge of the Bishop of the diocese. With regard to the principle of the Bill, he could not see what objection could be raised to it. If the net included too many places within it, that was a matter open to objection and discussion. He should be sorry to disturb the status quo in respect to any school to which clergymen might now have access, or by which the claimants to the rights of a school would be interfered with. It was perhaps too late this Session to pass the measure, but he thought that the case of the institutions to which he had alluded required legislation upon the most ordinary principles of justice and common sense. MR. HADFIELD said, that the Bill would place the chaplains of schools in a position of rivalry with the incumbents of the parish. The founder of these schools contemplated the teaching of the child, and not the appointment of the master as chaplain. The measure would create an empire within an empire. Why did not the hon. Member bring in the Bill at an earlier period of the Session? Last year the Bill came on for discussion in a similar manner at the fag end of the Session. Believing that the measure would violate the foundation deeds of charities and unsettle the rights of Dissenters in these schools, he supported the Amendment, and would cheerfully divide against the Bill. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, it was generally admitted it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill this Session, and that the only object in discussing it was that its principle should be fully understood, and thus the way prepared for future legislation. It appeared that some grievance had led to the introduction of this Bill, and it was one suffered by members of the Church of England, because they belonged to a State Church. In fact, in some respects they were more fettered than the Dissenting bodies. There was nothing to prevent Roman Catholics, Independents, Quakers, or Mormonites from establishing a school according to the religious principles of their respective persuasions-the law did not interfere. But if Churchmen established a school, it was possible for some legally authorized person to interfere with the religious teaching which the parents might wish to be given. He did not think that members of the Church of England should, on some consideration of "Church and State" policy, lose the liberty enjoyed by other persuasions, and he was favourable to the principle of the Bill so far as it granted that liberty. There was, however, a danger to be guarded against, and care must be taken that the rights of Dissenters should not be interfered with. It was not unnatural that the measure should be regarded with suspicion by the Dissenters. There were several educational establishments which their children had the right to attend, and others as to which their rights were in doubt or dispute. It was necessary that nothing should be done to weaken the present rights or claims of Dissenters, and such a measure, if brought forward at all, should be introduced by the Go vernment. If it were now withdrawn, and the Secretary of State should take it up in another Session, he ought to see, on the one hand, that it was not advisable that parents of the Church of England should be deprived of the rights enjoyed by other sects, while, on the other hand, great care should be taken not to put the Nonconformists in a worse position than they now enjoyed. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he could not concur in the grounds on which the objections of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment were founded, but he agreed that it would not be desirable to proceed further with the measure at the close of the Session. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lygon) explained that he had brought it in at an early period of the Session, but that he had not had an opportunity of asking the House to agree to the principle until the present time. If there really was a practical grievance, as stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), he should be sorry to object to the application of any proper remedy. He understood it to be alleged that in public schools, such as Harrow, Rugby, and Wellington College, Divine service could not be performed by the master or any chaplain attached to the schools without the consent of the incumbent, and that this consent was not always given. His hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. W. E. Forster), said that the Government ought to bring in a Bill next Session to remedy the grievance; but all he (Sir George Grey) could say was that not one word had ever been addressed to him as to the existence of any grievance or inconvenience of this kind. He was not aware of any practical difficulty in the performance of Divine service in such institutions. At Harrow he was sure there was none. Dr. Arnold continually performed Divine service in the school chapel of Rugby, and several volumes of most valuable sermons preached by him at Rugby had been published. He was not aware that the slighest difficulty had occurred at Rugby which this Bill would remove. If, however, there was any case of this kind-and he gathered from the speech of his hon. Friend that there was one such case-if the incumbent of any parish exercised any right which he might possess of refusing his licence to a clergyman to officiate in a public school, that might be a reason for an alteration of the law. But the present measure went much beyond that. It included within its provisions every endowed school in England | considered this Session. Wellington Colconnected by its foundation with the lege was not the only instance in which a Church of England. It would, therefore, Bill of this kind was required. There was include almost all the great grammar a school containing some 500 boys at schools of the country. He had received Lancefield, and were they to be compelled a letter that day from a gentleman in one to go to the parish church? In some of the northern dioceses, stating, that the cases the church only contained accommoBill would apply to 148 schools in that dation for 200 or 250 persons altogether; diocese, and would therefore virtually and were the parents to be at the mercy enable the Bishop to interfere with 148 of the incumbent to say whether there parishes within his diocese. Why did should be a chapel attached to the school the hon. Gentleman who proposed this or not? Some legislation was wanted, Bill go so much beyond the object he had but as soon as any measure was brought in view, and thus excite so much more in to benefit the Church of England the opposition than a more limited measure hon. Member for Sheffield appeared to would receive? It was stated that many consider it his duty to thwart it. of these endowed schools, although connected by their foundation with the Church of England, were attended very largely by Dissenters; and it must not be forgotten that the exercise of the powers conferred by this Bill would have the effect, or might have the effect, if attendance at Divine service should be enforced, of causing the children of Nonconformists to be withdrawn. He did not object to the principle of the Bill as it had been explained by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walters), but he could not help thinking that the measure deserved more consideration than could be given to it at the present period of the Session. He suggested last year, on a similar occasion, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and he stated that if the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would consent to that course, he would support the second reading. He was ready to make the same offer on the present occasion. What the House wanted to know was the particular nature and extent of the grievance complained of, and then apply the remedy without going beyond the necessities of the case. Last year the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), who had charge of the Bill, admitted the reasonableness of his proposal. If the hon. Member (Mr. Lygon) went to a division, he was ready to vote for the second reading, on the understanding that the measure was not to be proceeded with this Session, and that if it were again introduced next Session it should be referred to a Select Committee. MR. COLLINS would recommend his hon. Friend to adopt the proposal of the Home Secretary, because, although there appeared to be an almost unanimous feeling that something ought to be done, yet it was impossible the Bill could be properly MR. LYGON said, he was willing to accept the proposal of the Home Secretary. The reason why the measure had been deferred to so late a period of the Session was that he had been anxious to obtain the co-operation of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). His hon. Friend took some time to consider the matter, and that was the reason why he had not been able sooner to proceed with the Bill which he had laid on the table in February. He was glad to hear so general an admission of the necessity of some legislation on this subject. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 49; Noes 35: Majority 14. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read 2o, and committed for this day three months. RAILWAYS CLAUSES (re-committed) BILL, Order for Committee read. MR. BASS said, that this was the se cond Bill on the same subject, and a great many of the clauses which were of advan tage to the public in the former Bill were not to be found in this. Now, the subject was one which required much more consideration than it was possible to give it at this period of the Session. Clause 10 in the former Bill, which related to taking possession of shops and dwelling-houses, provided that the companies should give six months' notice beforehand; but the railway magnates had succeeded in getting Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"-(Mr. Bass,) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.' this clause struck out. Again, Clause 14 | right hon. Friend consented to reintroduce of the old Bill gave compensation for loss the compensation clause which was conof trade and assuredly there could not tained in the former Bill. be a fairer ground for compensation and yet that clause had been struck out. In Clause 21 of the first Bill restrictions were imposed upon the creation of impediments to traffic; but the railway companies induced the right hon. Gentleman to strike-instead thereof. out that provision also. Clause 22 of the other Bill provided that the companies should not stop up a street without the consent of the street authorities, and in a previous clause it was laid down that a portion of the street should be left open for traffic; but both clauses had been cut out. The fact was the railway companies at present had it all their own way. What with contractors in the House and railway directors at the right hon. Gentleman's back, those companies were a very powerful body. For similar goods and similar quantities of them it would be thought that the same rates should be charged; but that was not always the case even on different parts of the same line. Some railways charged only half what was charged by others. He could give an instance with regard to one trade, in which the difference of rates made a difference of £50,000 a year. This Bill was too important to pass in so thin a House and at such a late period of the Session, and he should therefore move that it be re-committed this day month. LORD FERMOY seconded the Amendment. Their constituents out of doors had reason to complain of the way in which the President of the Board of Trade had dealt with the Bill. The Bill had been subjected to so many alterations that it was to all intents and purposes a new one. The parishes of St. Pancras and Marylebone had, of all others in the metropolis, been most invaded by the railway companies, and no one except those who were intimately connected with the traders of the metropolis could form an idea of the absolute ruin which was caused by those companies running a line through a populous district. He had known many excellent and industrious tradesmen in St. Pancras and Marylebone utterly ruined in consequence of the railway companies cutting off customers from getting access to their shops. The conduct of the Government with regard to this Bill had been something very like underhand dealing with the House, and he should give every possible opposition to the Bill unless his MR. HORSFALL said, he should feel it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby. The Bill professed to give the public protection against the railway companies; but he held in his hand a circular which would put an end to that delusion. That circular, which was signed with the name of Mr. Thomas Coates, stated that the Parliamentary Committee of the railway companies had discussed the provisions of the Bill with the Board of Trade, and those provisions were now in harmony with the views of the railway companies. Of course they were; for the clauses in favour of the public had been struck out. It was said that this was merely a Bill for the consolidation of previous enactments, and yet the Amendment which he had proposed to introduce would not be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, though the provision which the Amendment embodied had been inserted in a former Bill. In the North Staffordshire Bill a clause had been inserted which subjected railway terminal charges to arbitration, and that was the very principle of the clause which he proposed to introduce as an Amendment. That was the sum total of the protection which he proposed to give the public, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had taken exception to it. In cases of difference, who was to decide under the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman ? None but the railway companies. But let hon. Members picture to themselves a trader taking a case into Court against railway companies with their millions of capital. What, then, could be fairer than to adopt the principle of the North Staffordshire Bill, and to have arbitrators appointed? Such a protection was absolutely necessary to the public. If his hon. Friend would consent to insert a clause to that effect he should be disposed to support the Bill; but the Bill in its present shape was injurious to the public and iniquitous, and he should oppose it. |