Bill been originally restricted to the transfer of their powers to the Charity Commissioners-as it afterwards came to be-it would have caused comparatively little discussion. The Division on the Second Reading took place on July 14, when Mr. Forster moved its rejection on the ground that it was retrograde and unfair. Its changes of policy, he said, were unwise and unjust, its changes in administration unnecessary and inexpedient. Under the first head, he argued that the clause which recognised as evidence of the founders' intention a direction to send the children to church, and to submit its rules to the Bishop or other ecclesiastical official, without any limitation as to the date of the Toleration Act, would practically hand over to the Church and to the control of Churchmen numerous schools which were intended for the nation at large. In illustration of the unfairness of this proposal, Mr. Forster pointed out that of 1,082 grammar schools, 584 were founded before the Toleration Act; 35 were pre-Reformation schools; 44 were founded during the Commonwealth. But where was this policy to end? The arguments by which this part of the Bill was supported would apply with more force to the repeal of the University Tests Act. Without pretending to say that the Commissioners had acted with perfect discretion in every case, Mr. Forster warmly eulogised their general services in the cause of Education, pointing out that only ten of their schemes had been challenged in Parliament, and that in mumerous cases they had acted in cordial co-operation with the Trustees. The Charity Commissioners, Mr. Forster held, having for the most part judicial functions, were not fitted for administrative duties, and were, as it was, overworked; and the proposed arrangements, he contended, would diminish the responsibility of the Education Department. Above all, the House ought to know how many schools the new test of denominationalism was to apply to.

Mr. Gladstone, from his place as Liberal leader, spoke against the contemplated measure as " inequitable, unusual, and unwise." Under the first head he maintained that the Church had no title to the endowments bestowed on her between 1530 and 1660when no man could live outside her pale; and her title was in no way strengthened by the fact that the founder had directed Church instruction to be given to the children. He thus argued the point that the retrograde legislation was unusual and unwise: "This is a Bill for undoing part of the work of the last Parliament. It is in that respect unusual. I do not wish to deny or qualify or weaken the fact that the party which sits opposite possesses, after having been many years in a minority, a large majority. What I wish to point out is this, that the history of our country for the last forty or fifty years presents to us, as a general rule, this remarkable picture: The initiative of policy in almost every instance-I do not know of even one exceptionboth of administrative and legislative, was supplied by the Liberal party, and subsequently adopted in prudence and in honesty by

the party which is called Conservative. Take the financial-take the colonial-take any of the Departments; and I venture to say that you will find that this is a true description of the history of which we have all been witnesses. When the Conservative Government came into power in 1834, and again in 1841, after the first Reform Act had been the subject of a long dispute and much contention, there was absolute security in the mind of the country and full conviction that the party coming into office would not be so unwise and so unpatriotic as to retrace the steps taken by their predecessors. This is the first instance on record, so far as I have been able to ascertain, of any deliberate attempt being made by a Ministry at retrogression. I invite the right hon. gentleman who appears inclined to follow me--I invite hon. gentlemen on either side of the House to tell me, do they know of any other such instance, except, perhaps, the one which happened a century and a half ago? I allude to the case of the Presbyterian Establishment, which had been placed in possession of ecclesiastical patronage in Scotland in the time of William III. There then came a Tory Ministry into power, who, in the early years of the reign of Queen Anne, made an attempt at passing a reactionary Bill. This Ministry introduced the measure which we now hear so much about for the establishment of patronage in the Church of Scotland. This involved the repeal of the previous Act of William III. This is the only solitary instance to which Her Majesty's Government can refer. And what an instance!— an instance that brought about the passage of the Act which the same party now proposes to repeal, because it was an act of retrogression, and because it interfered with the integrity of the Presbyterian Constitution. That, then, is the only instance of any similar course that can be adduced in support of the ill-omened Bill we are now invited to vote for. If that be so-if this be a most unusual step-it is also as unwise as it is unusual. What does this Bill amount to? The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has said that this is one of the legacies which have been left by the Liberal Government. Yes; there have been a great many legacies left by the Liberal Government. The policy which at present governs every Department of the State is part of the legacy left by the Liberal Government. The right hon. gentleman and his party ought to be more grateful for those Liberal legacies on which they will have to live as a Ministry. What are we now asked to do? The majority of this Parliament is invited to undo the work of their predecessors in office in defiance of precedents which I should weary the House by enumerating, so great are their number and uniformity. It is rather remarkable that what is now the majority is about to undo an Act which they had never opposed in its passage. I believe that the conditions with reference to schools before the Toleration Act and before the Reformation were carried in this House without a division. I believe I am even strictly correct in saying that this pro

vision was not only agreed to without a division, but without an adverse voice when the Question was put from the Chair. Yet they now avail themselves of the first opportunity they have to attempt to repeal what they did not object to when it was before Parliament. Is this wise? Is it politic? Is it favourable to the true interests of the Established Church? Is it well that the members of that great and wealthy body should be represented as struggling at every instant to keep their hands upon the pounds, shillings, and pence, whatever else may be in danger? I am quite sure that there are multitudes of the laity of that Church who do not take this sordid view; but the introduction and promotion of a Bill of this nature, in defiance of all the principles of equity, will raise some such consideration in the minds of a large proportion of the population of the country. What has been the judgment generally passed upon us by foreign authors-men of the highest weight and importance in their respective countries? They have often told truths of which we should not be fully aware from our own observation. What have they told us of their judgment of the course and conduct of the British Legislature? If you consult any one of those great political writers who adorn the literature of their own countries you will find their language respecting us uniform. When they look at our political constitution they are struck by the multitude of obstructions which for the defence of minorities we allow to be placed in the way of legislation. They are struck by observing that the immediate result is great slowness in the steps we take, but when they refer to the consequences of this slowness they find one great and powerful compensation, and it is that in England all progress is sure. Vestigia nulla retrorsum. Whatever has been once decidedwhatever has once taken its place in the Statute Book or has been adopted in our Administration, no feelings of party and no vicissitudes of majorities or minorities are allowed to draw the nation into the dangerous, though they may be the seductive, paths of retrogression. That is the principle to which we appeal; and, even were the rights of the case less clear, even were it equitable instead of inequitable for the Church to make the claims which are made in her behalf by the Government, most unwise would it be on the part of any Administration-and, of all others, most unwise on the part of a Conservative Administration-to give a shock to one of the great guiding principles and laws which have governed the policy of this country throughout a course of many generations, and the solidity and security of which is one of the main guarantees of the interests we possess, and the liberty we enjoy."

The scattered ranks of the Liberal party had reunited for the contest. Nevertheless, after a Government speech from Mr. Gathorne Hardy, the Second Reading was carried by a majority of 82. Mr. Fawcett then tried to stop the Bill by moving n Amendment upon the motion for going into Committee, to the

effect that "in the opinion of the House it is inexpedient to sanction a measure which will allow any one religious body to control schools that were thrown open to the whole nation by the policy of the last Parliament." The Division on this Amendment showed a reduction of the Government majority from 82 to 61.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a moderate and liberal speech, explaining the part which he and Lord Derby had taken. in Lord Clarendon's Schools Inquiry Commission, and pointing out that if the recommendations of that Commission, which was in favour of using the Charity Commissioners, assisted by local machinery, had been followed, this difficulty would have been avoided. The Charity Commissioners were ready to undertake this duty, which they thought they could perform satisfactorily, and in thus transferring it to them he denied that any slur was cast on the Endowed Schools Commission. Examining the various alternatives which lay before the Government, he showed that the arrangement now suggested was the wisest, and he explained that the object of Lord Sandon's amendment, though it would make no difference in the operation of the Bill, would make it plainer that its intention was not to exclude Nonconformists from the governing bodies, but to provide that religious instruction should be given in these schools in accordance with the intentions of the founder. The Government would have the greatest repugnance to excluding the great body of the Nonconformists, and the precise words by which this could be done was a matter which could best be settled in Committee.

Mr. Lowe, after adding a few words to the general chorus of censure addressed to Lord Sandon from the Opposition side of the House, went on to argue against the proposal to transfer the control of the Endowed Schools to the Charity Commissioners, who, after a few years of honest discharge of duty, would be broken. down by the weight of unpopularity it would bring on them. He showed next how the new point of departure for deciding on the denominational character of a school would add some 400 or 500 schools to the Church of England, and warned the Conservative party that it was preparing for itself future misfortune by giving its opponents a new grievance to remedy. But his chief objection to the Bill was that it reversed the well-settled rule of party warfare that a measure once passed should have a fair trial before any attempt was made to reverse it. This was the old policy of væ victis, and, though he hoped the Liberals would not retaliate when their turn came, he was afraid they would, and such a game of see-saw Mr. Lowe feared would degrade the House of Commons to the level of Foreign Legislatures where party quarrels were carried almost to the length of personal violence.

It became evident that the Bill could not pass in its then state without further long and vehement discussion, during which the consolidation of the Liberal party would continue to advance, while the differences between the supporters of Government, would

become only more and more declared. Two days of business in Committee confirmed this view; and when the Bill next came on for debate, on the 24th, Mr. Disraeli announced the abandonment of the Foundation Clauses, and the restriction of the measure to the mere abolition of the Endowed Schools Commissioners and the transfer of their powers to the Charity Commissioners. His utterance on the occasion was somewhat strange, people said, as coming from a Prime Minister. He noticed the fact that the disputed clauses had given rise to great difference of opinion as to their construction and meaning, and declared that although the confession might seem to prove his incapacity to fill the position he occupied, he must confess that after hours of anxious consideration, the clauses were unintelligible to him. He had accepted them on the faith of "the adepts and experts" to whom he had looked for instruction in such matters; they had failed him, and the meaning of these clauses of his own Bill was obscure and hidden from his comprehension. They would therefore be withdrawn, and the Bill reduced to the smaller compass above mentioned, while the Government would postpone to another Session the amendments in the law which they might deem necessary. Mr. Disraeli scarcely made his position as Head of the Government better when, a few days later, having to give the names of the three Commissioners who were to take the Endowed Schools business upon them, he took occasion to observe that Lord Sandon was not, as had been reported, alone responsible for the Bill which had been under discussion. The Bill was the Bill of the Cabinet, and had been prepared by Ministers in common. He had himself requested his noble friend to introduce it, as the organ of Government and the representative of the Educational Department in the House of Commons, from his habitual wish to give a chance" to the "rising statesmen" of the day.

Mr. Gladstone had his triumph. He made a long speech, in which he said the country would now have an opportunity of judging of the Conservative policy. All the legislation promised in the Queen's Speech was to be abandoned, and the only Act of the Session was to consist in the dismissal of three Endowed Schools Commissioners, because it was said they were the friends of the late Government, and they were to be replaced by three friends of the present Ministry. The Prime Minister had said some of the clauses of the Endowed Schools Bill were quite unintelligible to him. This was a most important discovery, and it was a great pity it was not made earlier, and then the charge of obstructive conduct might not have been brought against those sitting on this side of the House. It appeared to him that the pledge of the right hon. gentleman to call attention to this subject anew in another Session of Parliament was a pledge dictated by Ministerial exigencies and by the state of the relations of those in the Cabinet, far more than by any well-weighed consideration of what was to take place in the future. If that was so, he