HC Deb 15 March 1859 vol 153 cc170-98

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, the Bill was quite a one-sided measure, and complained that any discussion or amendment on it had last year been prevented by a technical difficulty. The most important stage of a Bill, the Committee, in which the details were considered, had, in fact, been practically, totally expunged in this measure, and amendments were excluded by its uncompromising title. It, therefore, came before the House in an exceptional form, that precluded all rational discussion of the subject. The whole force of the measure was compromised in a single clause of an intolerant character; and there would be no opportunity but this of joining issue on the principle, unless by moving an Amendment that would change the title of the Bill. It appeared to him extremely to limit, to nullify, be might almost say to stultify, the powers of that House. He knew of no other measure which proposed to take the House by storm; and therefore he contended that it came before them in a totally exceptional state, and one calculated to stifle, preclude, and prejudge all national discussion. Was it to be presupposed that there was but one side to the Bill? Gentlemen who had supported the second reading had various views on the matter. He knew many personally who had voted for the second reading who wished to make alterations in the Bill, innocently supposing that opportunities would not be wanting in Committee. The Bill was surrounded with difficulties and was brought before them in such a way that they had no fair opportunity for discussion. This Bill had on former occasions gone up to "another place" and been rejected there by considerable majorities. Almost all the minority in that place however voted for the second reading with an express declaration that they intended to make alterations in Committee. It was said that there should be no compromise, "no surrender"—reviving the old Protestant cry in Ireland which was so much condemned—and nothing but one view should prevail. That was not the case in 1856. The hon. Baronet who had then the conduct of the measure was willing to accept of other terms, and those terms would have been probably carried through the House had it not been for the late period of the Session. Why was not the compromise of 1856 equally applicable in 1859? It was merely the spirit of success, and he should think to a certain extent the spirit of intolerance, seeing the victory, as they supposed, so nearly approaching. He believed that they were bound constitutionally to consider Amendments in Committee. The whole principle of the Bill is that every Church establishment is contrary to the law of God. That is the position which the supporters of the Bill profess to hold; but he asked, what foundation is there for that? He should like to know on what principle is it that human virtue should be entirely unassisted? Take the very highest virtue of all, charity. Do we leave it entirely to itself? No, we call in the assistance of a legal provision for the poor, which, after all, did not interfere with its exercise. The existence of any establishment whatever in support of any virtue was not inconsistent with the exercise of that virtue; nay, it was often highly beneficial in its effect. Why was France from time to time so disturbed? The reason was because every man there—every ouvrier, knew that he might at any moment die in a garret without legal assistance. And if in this country there was one circumstance more than another which tended to the preservation of public order it was that we have a legal provision for our poor. Take the case of the voluntary system in this country. Did we depend exclusively on that system? Were not the courts of law frequently called upon to support the endowments of chapels and schools? He never heard that either a hospital or chapel ever refused a donation of a £1,000 in order to carry out the voluntary principle. The Church establishment did not preclude the voluntary principle. In short, the mere abstract principle on either side was falsified by every one's experience. No one would contend that the Church of England was anti-christian, although people might believe a little more or less than she taught. Just as Theodore Hook when he was asked, as a young man about to enter one of the colleges at Oxford, if he would sign the thirty-nine articles, said, "Oh, yes; forty of them if you like." He was far from contending for the infallibility of the Church of England. He was rather inclined to concur in the opinion which he had heard expressed, "That we were all very much of the religion that our mothers took us to when we were children." Those who were pressing forward this question, and whom the hon. Baronet represented, would not be satisfied with the abolition of church rates. At a soirée of a society called the Religion Liberation Society, at which the hon. Baronet was advertised to preside, but which he was prevented attending by ill-health, Mr. Miall declared that they never intended to abide by the Church Rate Bill as a final measure; but that, on the contrary, what they desired was the separation of Church and State. Mr. Miall's words were these: — He was addressing his countrymen through the press. They wished for an entire disseverance of the Church from the State. Their object was not to get rid of the church rate merely. They were going further than the church-rate question, which was only as a grain of sand to a mountain. Let it not be forgotten that a much wider and broader question remained behind, a question which had to do with the great principle on which Church affairs should be conducted in relation to the civil institutions of the land. Let those who opposed the Church Rate Bill take all the advantage they could from the avowal; but they did not and never did intend to abide by the Church Rate Bill as a final measure. Would the hon. Baronet explain whether or not he intended to presided at the meeting in question? The House had a right to know. The supporters of this measure, therefore, avowed that they had an ulterior object, and that itself ought to induce the House to reject this Bill. He emphatically denied that any honest Dissenters required anything of the sort; they would be perfectly satisfied to claim the exemption from the rate, and would feel no grievance in merely signing their names once a year. Under these circumstances why should that House seek to enforce its views without regard to the opinions of a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature? There had been introduced into "another place" a measure which was based on a conciliatory principle, and he would ask the House whether it would refuse to accept such a measure? If, as he believed, they would receive a conciliatory measure in a favourable spirit, it would be illogical to agree to the second reading of the Bill, which put the matter beyond all doubt by absolutely abolishing church rates at once and for ever. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the following Amendment: — "That any amendment of the law relating to church rates, which should exempt persons contributing to the support of some other place of worship than the parish church from the payment of the rate, at the same time that the existing machinery for the support of the fabric of the Church of England should be continued in operation upon the members of her own communion, is worthy of the consideration of this House."

MR. HUDSON

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the ward 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'any amendment of the Law relating to Church Rates which should exempt persons contributing to the support of some other place of worship than the parish church from the payment of the Rate, at the same time that the existing machinery for the support of the fabric of the Church of England should be continued in operation upon the members of her own communion, is worthy of the consideration of this House,' instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, that although he was perfectly ready to agree to the personal exemption of Noncomformists from church rates, he could be no party to an arrangement by which people claiming that exemption would be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of other places of worship. But he had risen principally for the purpose of requesting his hon. Friend to consent to the withdrawal of his Resolution. His hon. Friend had had the opportunity of bringing his views before the House, and he had done so in a speech replete with argument and sound sense; but after all, the mode he had chosen was not a suitable mode of bringing the question before them, for even if his Resolution were carried, it would produce no substantial result. It was not a direct negative on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill; it was nothing more than an attempt to obstruct the progress of the measure by means of an abstract proposition; and although such a mode of proceeding had recently received very high sanction, it was not one that ought to be looked upon with favour by the House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock had dealt very fairly with them in bringing the measure under their consideration; and he (Mr. S. Estcourt) hoped that upon that day, which had been specially set apart for its discussion, they would either accept or reject it upon its own merits.

MR. STEUART

said, that if the Amendment were brought forward on another opportunity, he should be happy to support it; but its adoption on the present occasion would be countenancing the bad practice of moving abstract Resolutions as Amendments on the second reading of Bills. He could not give his vote in favour of the Bill of the hon. Baronet which he believed would pass that House and be rejected in "another place" and then the time would have arrived for some compromise; for be believed the course taken to refuse all compromise on this subject had strengthened the hands of moderate men, who were open to any reasonable compromise. It was argued that, if voluntary contributions were substituted for church rates, only those churches which were not required would cease to be supported. But who were to decide in this case? Were they to be the inhabitants of the districts, or other persons not actuated by friendly views to the Church Establishment? He feared that if the present Bill were carried, many rural districts where the people were too poor to provide a church, would he deprived of the advantages of religious instruction. He was willing to exempt Dissenters from church, rates, because they had done good in spreading religion; but he would not consent to destroy churches where they were wanted.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, that in compliance with what seemed to be the general wish of the House, he would not persevere with his Resolution.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

*MR. BERESFORD HOPE

I cannot refrain, Sir, from promising the House that I shall not take so deep a plunge into the nature of things, or enter upon so wide a range of all philosophy as we have been lately led into, by the hon. Member for Devizes. If church rates are to be abolished posterity will say that they want no historian, but "such an honest chronicler as Griffith." My task is a more practical one, and I shall try to compress it into as brief a space as the importance of the subject will permit. For it is a really important subject. The question is not the same as that which was discussed last Wednesday. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), then very truly pointed out that the discussion of Wednesday last was to try an individual issue—it was to try the limited issue contained in the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had laid on the table of the House—the wider question of church rates themselves, from that of their absolute abolition to the dry maintenance of the present state of things, remains behind. If we were indeed to take the discussion which arose on the right hon. Gentleman's Bill as concluding the main question, we should have to abandon the case. But I, for one, say, that the cause of church rates is not yet hopeless. The discussions which have already taken place upon the subject have made one thing clear, that the cry for abolition of church rates proceeds from a divided party—that it is not a question of Dissenters against the Church, but that the opponents of church rates form a portion, and a small portion only, of the Dissenting body, together, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth pointed out. with a portion of the members of the Church who have certain specific grievances which can easily be remedied by means short of the destruction of the system of church rates. But all the Dissenters are not pledged to the abolition of church rates. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge- shire, who, in a speech of great power and admirable feeling, told the House that though he had conscientious objections to the payment of church rates, yet he was willing to receive the measure of the Government, which relieved him, and those who thought with him, from their conscientious objections, and which allowed to Dissenters what they required, the freedom to worship God according to their own consciences, and who said he would not he a party to any measure which would relieve Dissenters by forcing upon Churchmen their abolition. What party, then, was it that was pressing for the abolition of church rates? Not the conscientious Dissenter— not the religious Dissenter—but a political organization, represented in London by a body which some years ago called itself the "Anti-State Church Association," but which had now assumed the more pompous appellation of the "Liberation of Religion from State Control Society." The objects of that Society, as declared by themselves, were, that they would not admit the Established Church to be regarded as a peculiarly national institution, and that they would strenuously oppose all legislative exemptions which proceeded on the assumption of what they considered any favour being shown to any one section of the Queen's subjects. Now what does that mean? It means that the abrogation of church rates is with them a means to an end—and that end is the abrogation of all Church property in building and in tithes—and this object I must give them the credit to say they carry out with great ingenuity and great assiduity. I have had the curiosity to look into some of the publications of this Society, which flourishes at Serjeants' Inn, and which has put forth numerous handbills, tracts, and advertisements, and which also publishes a paper under the title of the Liberator. About two years ago the Liberator published an extract from the Nonconformist newspaper, which it is well known is edited by a gentleman who is no stranger to this House, and which is looked upon as the representative of the political Dissenters. What says the Nonconformist?— Radical politicians, we know, greatly dislike spending any particle of their strength upon ecclesiastical questions. They will have to conquer that dislike; for ecclesiastical questions will furnish the chief occasions of popular conflict for years to come. But for the strange and anomalous position occupied just now by the State Church—but for the evident fact that that institution is out of keeping with all our other institutions—but for its hatred of all change, its tenacious clinging to all abuses, its monopoly of honours, its disregard of common justice, its never-ending attempts at encroachment, its oppressive exactions, its grasping cupidity—we question whether now- a-days the middle classes could be got to take even a passing interest in politics. Upon no other subject can excitement be so easily awakened. Why, even in the House of Commons there is far more earnestness in reference to some of its phases than almost any other matter can produce. Every one feels that it is the grand question on either side of which political parties will soon range themselves. It will be impossible to form and discipline a party without distinct reference to this. Even Parliamentary Reform is chiefly desired on the one hand, and deprecated on the other, as it is believed to bear upon the future destiny of the Church. Of course we do not expect that our convictions on this matter can be safely thrust into a programme of policy. But, as we said before, a fundamental truth or two, stopping short of our ultimate aim, and yet broad enough to answer present need, will be found an indispensable feature of any manifesto which is designed to serve as a banner to the Radical party, and as a source of inspiration and a bond of union to its members. They will never gain cither unity, discipline, or courage, until they can dare to face the greatest anomaly of the age—the Established Church. It is the only remaining enterprise capable of inspiring enthusiasm. Well, what does all this mean? It means simply, that the Anti-State Church Association, now the Liberation of Religion from State Control Society, claims to appropriate to itself the revenues and the established position of the Church of England. I hold in my hand a tract establishing this point, which states itself to have been written by the Rev. Ralph Ward-law, D.D., entitled the "Doctrine of Voluntaryism as distinguished from Slate Establishments." This tract is printed, published, and sold at the office of the Society in Serjeant's Inn. The writer says— In the second place, the charge of seeking to pull down the Church is in another sense a truth, and in that sense we neither disown the charge nor object to the mode of expressing it. If by the Church is meant the Church Establishment, the charge is true. We shrink not from it; we avow it; we glory in it; nor do we object to the terms: Pulling down is an apostolic phrase. Proving their doctrines orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks. "Pulling down is an apostolic phrase," and in virtue of this apostolic doctrine the Society finds its vocation in stirring up the people against church rates by tracts, by pamphlets, by the employment of paid agents, and by the most assiduous working of every mode of political ma- chinery which the modern science of agitation has placed in men's hands. This is the body which gets up agitation over the length and breadth of society. Here is one of their handbills, well printed, and in large type. Does the Society, in such a publication as this, maintain the great truth they have discovered and mean to act upon, about pulling down the Church? They are too wise in their generation for that; but those bills, though they are saleable in London, at the office in Serjeants' Inn, are so worded that they may be used in any part of the country where a church rate agitation is on foot. These bills are then posted up, and appear as if they were local publications. This one is headed, "Ratepayers remember," without any printer's name. The House need not be alarmed; I shall not read it all. It sounds very like a dilution of the speech which we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir Richard Bethell) the other day. It says— In all the large towns of the kingdom church rates have been discontinued, and neither the interests of the Church of England nor the interests of religion have suffered. Why are they still kept up in this parish? Thus this broadside is printed and published in London, at the central depot of the Society, where I bought it, and where everybody else may buy it; but it is written so as to delude the rustic population, and to persuade them what a clever man they must have got in their parish, who was able to write a publication like that. This is the sort of agitation—this is the clamour on which the opponents of church rates rest for success. In "another House," there is a Bill for relieving conscientious Dissenters from any scruples they may entertain as to the payment of church rates. Whether that Bill will ever come before us or not remains to be seen. But in some form of compromise or exemption a measure of that kind will still have to be discussed in this House; and in the prospect of such compromise, to give our assent to the present Bill would show a reckless disregard to the ancient rights of the Church. There indeed is one solution of the difficulty, which is not now before the House, I am happy to say, though at one time it was looked on with favourable eyes by those who wished for a peaceful settlement of the question—I mean a "fabric rate," leaving the expenses of worship to be defrayed by the worshippers themselves. I would much sooner see the matter settled by the abolition of church rates altogether than sec a rate levied for the maintenance of the fabric only. If you do that, you will play the game of the Liberation Society, who would very gladly induce men to pay a fabric rate, because they look upon those fabrics as their own future inheritance. Those Gentlemen who were Members of this House some ten years ago will remember the effect which was produced upon us by the speech of the late Mr. Sheil, on a question which has not long since been before the House again, for legalizing certain illegal marriages. In that speech the orator drew a touching picture of the feelings of the dying wife while her sister smoothed down the pillow in which she had a "residuary interest." So I say that Dissenters—Dissenters, I mean, of the stamp of the Liberation Society—will willingly pay the fabric rate, because they would feel they had a residuary interest in that pillow where they hoped soon to repose by an unlawful marriage with the State. Mr. Miall, who is the great organ of the body, and who was the president of that meeting at which the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock wisely, and with his usual good sense, refused to take the chair, had to answer a question, whether in the event of Parliament proposing to abolish church rates on the agreement that the fabrics should be kept up out of the funds now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the society would assent? Mr. Miall replied,— That in his judgment, the society might consistently do so. Such a change of the law would extinguish the taxing power of the Establishment, and dry up one of its sources of revenue, while the ecclesiastical revenues applied to the purposes for which church rates are now levied, would still he national property, and be capable of appropriation to secular purposes at a future time. This, then, was Mr. Miall's programme of proceedings; this was what the society was driving at—and this, I say, it would be false wisdom in us to help on,—a policy which we should adopt, if we were to attempt to settle the question by the dangerous expedient of a fabric rate for the sake of conciliating the Dissenters. If you do carry a fabric rate, and if you take the next step, and dispossess the Church of her ancient habitations, who would be the gainers? Would the Dissenters win them? Assuredly not. If the Church were dispossessed, the State would step in, and would not allow the thousands of churches in this land to be thrown into the ring and the sects to make a denominational scramble for them. the Dissenters would find that they had only exchanged the mild hand of the Establishment for the grinding hoof of a central State bureaucracy. The whole condition of Europe since the great crash of the French Revolution, shows that property of all sorts, and most especially of all ecclesiastical bodies, had suffered from the shock: the churches are usurped by the State, and the result is that religious liberty, as we understand the term, is altogether unknown. In Protestant and Roman Catholic countries alike, a Ministère des cultes holds the Churches in bondage, and doles out their stipendiary pittances to the different denominations. If the first stone of a Roman Catholic church, or of a Protestant "temple" is to be laid, who is employed to lay it. The Bishop or the pastor, as the case may be? No such thing. It is the Prefet or the Sous-prefet that lays it. In Germany we even see the churches divided into two: one portion occupied by the professors of one confession, the other by another. In France we see such Protestant congregations as are unauthorized by law persecuted by the priest, bullied by the prefet, harassed by the minister. Why is all this? Why, because Church property is not respected; and Roman Catholic and Protestant alike are driven to depend upon the State. If the Liberation Society could succeed in dispossessing the Church of its ancient possessions, the same thing would take place here: and religion, far from being liberated from State control, would be placed under a tyranny of which this country has now no idea. So much for the agitation for the object so much desired by the political Dissenters. I admit the argument in favour of a well-considered scheme which would relieve the consciences of Dissenters as individuals, one and another, as each of them objected. But any scheme which attempts to overturn church rates as a stepping-stone for getting rid of the Establishment, helps on the creation of a hopeless State tyranny which will impartially crush all denominations without exception, and which, in support of its own claim for universal control, will mercilessly check all free display of religious zeal.

Now, I come to the second class of objectors named in the argument of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth — those Churchmen who are already liable for the support of their district churches. If their case were hopeless—if there were no remedy for them short of the abolition of church rates, then something might be said in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. But what are we to say if the remedy already exists; if there is already a power given to district churches to liberate themselves from the control of the mother Church in the parish. Has he forgotten the Act which was passed a few years ago by a noble Duke, and which is popularly known as the Blandford Act? There may he considerable vagueness in the phraseology of that Act, and consequent difficulty in bringing it into operation, but its purpose is plain, and the difficulties which attach to it may, by a short and clear Act to amend it, be easily set right. With this Act in existence, which may so easily be brought into working order, for the right hon. Member for Morpeth to get up and make the difficulties attached to the district churches a reason for passing the present Bill, only shows how far persons can be carried by party feeling. Any one who listened to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, would suppose that the one unpardonable sin in his eyes—the one idea from which every well-constituted mind would turn with horror, would be a Bill that should permit church rates to be reimposed in those parishes where the non-collection of them had passed the magic period of five Years. He very ably and cleverly kept away from the consideration of the House, the totally altered conditions under which the church rates would now be reimposed in those parishes. Hitherto the church rate had come upon them as an impost levied upon crowded towns, and thickly populated streets, many of which were totally cut off from all spiritual connection with the mother Church; and it was no wonder that the inhabitants felt aggrieved by their being called upon to contribute to a church which they did not attend, while their own church was supported either by a second rate, a small sum churlishly doled out of the parish rate, a voluntary contribution, or the obnoxious expedient of pew-rents. Well but in the supposed case, we should have changed the conditions of all these things; we should leave to the parish church only its own district, while each separated district church would be entitled to have its own rate to itself; and furthermore to have it levied exclusively upon the church worshippers, fur purposes of which those worshippers themselves are to partake. Is it impossible — is it not likely—is it not a thing to be desired and probable, that church rates would be restored in many such districts under these altered conditions when the ratepayers knew that the funds at the disposal of their church would be employed for the purposes of their own worship; when they saw their clergyman establishing schools, and labouring in every good work—when they found that by means of it the seats in the church would be free, and pew-rents never more heard of? So much for the objection arising from the condition of the district churches; so much for the hobgoblin which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth has raised. It is nothing to the purpose to say, that rates have been refused fur so many years in those localities, when I have shown that there is nothing improbable in their being partially at least reimposed under the altered condition of the parishes. Last of all, I must advert to a plea which I have often heard urged, but which of all the arguments ever brought against the continuance of church rates appears to me the most untenable, monstrous, and unjust. It is said that because of the splendid munificence which the Church has shown of late in spreading religion over the land, therefore, her virtue is to be its own punishment, her voluntary sacrifices are to be met by voluntary robbery, and because she has given much of that which there was no legal obligation on her to offer, she must be despoiled of what is her own. It seems to me, that if there is anything contrary to justice, contrary to reason, contrary to good faith, and contrary to common sense, it is such a proposition as this, that because of the noble sacrifices which the Church of England and her sons have made of late years: because of the splendid munificence which has been shown by a Warne-ford, a Cotton, a Haddo, an Akroyd, and a Burdett Coutts, therefore the Church, the fruitful mother of such children, should be despoiled of her lights, and because she has used her talents wisely, and even multiplied them tenfold, therefore those talents must be taken away and given to another. Because she has come forward and contributed so largely wherever necessity appeared, even though the recipients of her bounty had no formal claim upon her, therefore you bid her begone when she asks only for that which the prescriptive right of centuries has made her legal property: and that too at a time when the Church has agreed by a public act of corporate self-sacrifice, to give up those points which constitute the only obstacles to her claim —to clear away those matters which were the only sources of heart-burning and jealousy, in agreeing to exempt all from paying the rate, whose objections had for their pretext the sacred claim of conscience. Therefore in the name of peace, in the name of religion, in the name of charity, in the name of justice, I protest against this monstrous act of spoliation; against this rough, ready, and most unreasoning attempt to foreclose the question, to make peace impossible by trampling upon justice, to strip the Church of what the law grants, and that at a time when by the compromise offered, law and conscience may be united together, so that what the law grants may be levied in such a way, that there shall not be a scruple of a conscientious objection which would not be respected. I therefore move, Sir, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

MR. DEEDES

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had often been called upon since he had been elected to a seat in that House to vote upon this measure, but he had never troubled the House with any expression of his opinion on the subject, and he now rose rather to enter a protest against the course which the House had taken on it than to enter into its intricacies. He had formerly entertained some hopes of a compromise, but despaired of any amicable Settlement of this question when he heard the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) say, in reply to some reference to a compromise, "We have got a majority, and we do not mean to have any compromise, but to have the entire abolition." In speaking of a possible settlement, he did not wish to use the word compromise, because that implied a giving up a principle on one side or the other. He wanted no one to give up a principle. What he wished was such an adjustment of the question as would on the one hand relieve the Dissenters so far as it was just that they should be relieved; and on the other that the Churchmen should have the proper means of maintaining the Church. He believed that one great reason of the hostility to church rates had arisen from their misappropriation. Both Churchmen and Nonconformists had a good deal to complain of on this point. He should wish to Bee the rate limited to the purposes to which it might be justly applied, the maintenance of the fabric of the church and keeping up the churchyard. For these purposes he should like to see the machinery of a rate continued. His plan would bean exceedingly simple one; he would give to the Churchwardens for the time being the same power now possessed by the surveyors of roads. The Churchwardens should be empowered to levy a rate in each year not exceeding a certain sum, and that a small one, without going to a vestry, unless it exceeded the limited amount, when the sanction of the vestry would be required. The rate would then merely be fixed on the church door, in the same manner as the present highway rate; and if the Churchwardens received from any person, in writing, a notice of a conscientious objection to pay the rate, his name would be struck out of it; the remaining sum on the paper would then he collected for the purposes for which it was required. He had no doubt the Churchmen would always come forward on any emergency to supply what was requisite; but it was an act of injustice to deprive Churchmen of all that machinery for levying a rate, if they wished it, which the law had sanctioned for so many years. Why should the Dissenters do it? They were entirely relieved from the rate, and that being done, they might leave Churchmen to carry on their own system of rating, if they wished to do so. He was in a position to state that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, having offered £56,000 for Church purposes, £100,000 in addition had been offered voluntarily. He did not wish to mix up any angry feeling with the question; he would not inquire whether the supporters of the Bill had any ulterior objects; he looked only at the measure as it came before the House, and as it stood he must oppose it.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to insert the words "upon this day six months."

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he agreed so far with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) as to say that it was a matter of regret that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) on the Bill brought in 1856 by Sir William Clay was not accepted by the House. He thought that if there ever was a time when a com- promise might have been effected it was then. Unfortunately the opportunity was not taken; circumstances prevented the Government of the day from passing the Bill; when it was brought forward again the Nonconformists refused to support it; and now—he said it with regret—but he felt that the time for compromise had en- tirely gone by. But when his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope) told the House that there was a fictitious agitation, he thought he must have looked very imperfectly at the subject before the House; because if he had read the evidence given before the Committee of 1851, he would have seen the evidence of Dr. Lushington, a great authority on this subject, and which was conclusive on this point. Dr. Lushington said, that for forty years' he had experience of this question, that the agitation was increasing in intensity every day, and that so far from there being any fictitious element in it-it was a genuine excitement. Therefore he thought, when the hon. Gentleman said that there was a fictitious agitation, he was not well acquainted with the subject. But the hon. Gentleman went further, and he endeavoured to terrify the House by his description of the Liberation Society and its ultimate views. With that society he (Mr. Osborne) need not tell the House he had no connection, and he knew nothing of it, except that the head of the society, Dr. Foster, was a man of great erudition. But was the existence of that society an argument why they should refuse to do an act of justice and expediency on a particular point? He had listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes); but he thought he might say, though the hon. Member relented, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners repented. But he was prepared to deal with this question in reference to the actual legality of the tax. Blackstone said that out of the ancient division of tithes into four parts, one part was appropriated to the maintenance of the fabric of the church; but that in process of time this burden was shifted on to the parishioners. Lord Campbell, when he was Attorney General, gave a decided opinion that it had been gradually imposed on them, and then enforced by ecclesiastical censure; it was an ecclesiastical encroachment, and no part of the common law of the land. But he asked any hon. Gentleman in that House, was the state of the law as it at present stood satisfactory. Had they not for twenty years been bringing in Bills on that subject which had constantly been rejected? What was the use of keeping up the present agitation when they knew very well that the fabric of the church was in no danger from the abolition of church rates? Take the case of Boston. Boston was one of those towns where the church rate was levied on stock-in-trade, and the excitement was so great that it amounted almost to a rebellion. For twenty years there had been no rate in Boston; and what was the consequence? The parish church had been put in a thorough state of repair, £12,000 had been raised, and two new churches bad been built into the bargain; and all this by voluntary subscriptions. The same was true of other towns, and to suppose, with the example of Scotland before us, where £3,900,000 had been subscribed to the Free Church, that the fabrics of the establishment would not be kept up by voluntary aid, was to libel the people of England. He could not understand why the Government were not prepared to settle this question on the principle of total abolition. In 1833, Lord Derby, experimenting in corpore vili, bad applied this principle to Ireland by the abolition of vestry cess, and why might not the noble Lord extend the same legislation to the church rate in England? He quite agreed that the time for compromise had gone by, and, in the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope), he urged the House, in the name of peace, charity, and justice, to abolish those rates, in the confident belief that the Church would not thereby suffer.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

said, he was anxious to state his views upon the question before the House, because he had always contended against the total abolition of church rates, and he had been anxious to obtain a compromise, and with that view had supported the measure lately introduced to the House by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, in the hope that it might be possible in Committee to effect such alterations in the scheme as would lend to a satisfactory settlement. But after the strong opinion the House had expressed, he could not help feeling that so far as it was concerned all hope of compromise was gone. He did not mean to say that they were resolved to adopt the hon. Baronet's Bill "pure and simple," but he took the late division as an absolute declaration on the part of the House that this disease which had so long festered in the community would yield to no remedy but absolute excision. He did not think that the present system was an injustice to Dissenters. This tax was sometimes designated a charge upon property, and sometimes a personal charge. If it was a charge upon property, it must be remembered that on that account the pro- perty had been obtained cheaper. His chief objection to the measure lately before the House was on account of its exemption of Dissenters on a mere declaration of their conscientious objection. There might be individual who had conscientious scruples against the rate, but he was afraid there were many others who took refuge under that pretence. His objection to the Bill, therefore, was, that it afforded a premium not only to the honest but to the mercenary Dissenter. If that Bill had gone into Committee, he (Mr. S. Wortley) should have liked to propose an Amendment on one portion of it, which seemed to deprive the Church of its national character, inasmuch as it shut the door against any hope of reconciling men who bad once made such a declaration to the pure doctrines of the Establishment. It now seemed to him to be the duty of Parliament to take some decided step, as the hope of compromise was gone. After much deliberation he had arrived at the decision not to oppose the second reading of this Bill, though he guarded himself against saying that he should eventually support it unless provisions were introduced which would greatly improve it. He thought a great mischief would be effected unless this measure were accompanied by some provision to secure the maintenance of the fabric of the Church in those agricultural and poor parishes where there were no rich men, and where local funds could not be raised for the purpose. If church rates were abolished generally, those proprietors who had bought their land cheaper, owing to the existence of the impost, could surely raise no objection if that portion which operated practically as a tax on property were retained. The charge might in that case be made easily redeemable, and might be set aside as a fund for maintaining the fabric. He would rely upon the zeal of the Church of England to supply the local funds for Church purposes, and he did not see why some such auxiliary fund as Queen Ann's Bounty, or the Church Building Society, might not be called into existence to support the church fabrics. There could be no doubt that in the populous parishes the generosity of the Churchmen would be such that the Church would be supported in a far more satisfactary manner than at present. Church rates were not coeval with the establishment of the Church in this country, for the old books made mention of the offerings by which the Church was supported. To do away with church rates, therefore, was not to abandon the principle of supporting the Church. The offerings to which he alluded were not only the christening and burial fees, but the offertory at the Communion and Easter offerings; and although some of them, such as the christening fees, and the burial fees, had assumed a legal shape, yet the Easter offerings and the offerings at the Communion were quite voluntary. In many parishes the clergymen were principally supported by voluntary contributions, but the Church in those parishes was just as much the church of the people as anywhere else. This was the case in his own parish. The Rectors of that parish, the Dean and Chapter of a great cathedral, derive from it £400 a year; but they had sold the tithe to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and all that the clergyman received of that £400 was £40 per annum. Everything which he had beyond that sum was supplied by the voluntary contributions of his parishioners, by which means also a curate was found for him. He must guard himself against being supposed to desire to give to the parishioners a choice of their minister, but he could not sec that this Bill endangered the principle of an Established Church. There could be no doubt that the continuance of church rates was a great grievance, and that their abolition would not affect the fabrics of the Church. Down to the time of James I. the fabric was maintained by voluntary contributions, and that monarch used to contribute a gold coin, which was now converted into an annual payment of £50 for the poor. It had been agreed on all hands that church rates were the source of great excitement, injury and ill-will in the country. There was no reason to doubt that the feeling of the great masses of the population towards the Church was such that were the present mischievous machinery removed, by their voluntary munificence not only would the present churches be maintained, but new spires would rise in all parts of the country. He believed that if church rates were abolished not only would they get large contributions from the Churchmen, but that many honest and scrupulous Dissenters, who differed from the Church of England rather as to matters of discipline than of doctrine, would contribute to its support. There were already instances of this. The Duke of Norfolk had freely given sites for Protestant churches in Sheffield; the hon. Baron who sat for the City of London (Baron L. Rothschild) had contributed to the support of the Established Church, and another hon. Friend of his had not only contributed to the expenses of the services in St. Paul's cathedral, but had, at an expense of several thousand pounds, founded a scholarship in a school in the City in which it was known that the doctrines of the Church of England alone were taught, He could not hope for many contributions from the class of Nonconformists of whom the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Had-field) was a typo; but there were, be believed, many Dissenters whoso love for religion was such that they were ready to bring all differences of opinion in the support of measures having in view the great object of the general worship of God.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT

said, be did not care whether church rates were in their origin legal or illegal; they bad to deal with church rates, not as regarded their origin, but as they stood at the present time. Church rates are legal now, but they had altered their character greatly within the last few years, They used to be regarded as a charge on land; but now that they could no longer be imposed except by the consent of a majority, be need not say they were no longer a certain charge on land. He did not think they could class church rates with tithe. Tithes were property. The parson's right was as good as the squire's every inch, and what was more it was often a good deal older. Church rates, however, were very different. Of late it had been decided that no community need pay the rate unless it pleased them to do so, which was quite a different thing from the payment of tithes. Nothing could be more fatal to the interests of the Church than coupling such things together. By so doing they might destroy tithes, but could not save church rates. It was admitted on all hands that the present state of the law in respect to church rates was unsatisfactory; but so it was upon many other points, and before he agreed to any change he wished to compare the present state with that which would exist if the proposed remedy was adopted. The rule that a majority should decide, although it might sometimes hear hardly upon minorities, was common in our institutions, and the question was whether the inconvenience of the present system was so great that there must cither be entire abolition or immediate measures which, he thought, were no remedies at all. He regretted that he had been unable to support the Bill, brought in with the best intentions, by one whom the whole House respected. But it did appear to him that the present state of the law was preferable to that which would have existed if the measure had passed into law. At present town communities desiring not to pay church rates could decide not to do so, while rural districts which chose to pay them could do so; but the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Walpole's) plan would have been that in those parishes (and they would be only few) where landlords chose to charge their property there would be funds, while in all towns where no such charge could he expected the present state of things would continue. The position now was — in largo towns church rates were virtually abolished; in rural districts they were paid and cheerfully paid. In that state of circumstances be was in no great hurry to alter the law; he would wait until he saw something better. All plans of exempting Dissenters upon a declaration of non-conformity were wrong, for he could not see why men should be called upon to show what are or are not their religious opinions. Neither could he admit that church rates were a. question entirely between Dissenters and the Church. One-half of the people in great towns who never went to church nor chapel, and never paid church rates, were not Dissenters, but they voted against the rates as most men would vote against all rates if they had the power of deciding upon the particular taxes levied upon them. The great objection raised to church rates was, that men were called upon to contribute to the support of a church with the tenets of which they did not agree. He felt that as far as it went that was really a grievance. But what would this Bill do? It would abolish church rates at once. Dissenters would be relieved; but how would Churchmen stand? They would be still left open to all the machinery of the parish vestry. Churchmen might subscribe, but the vestry might step in and interfere with the distribution of the funds thus contributed. The fact was, although there had been much hesitation in admitting it, that the Church of England was parochial in the country and congregational in towns; that was an admission made openly by the Bill lately brought in by the Government. Churchmen were loth to make it because it was so far admitting that the Church of England was not the National Church. The first approach that he had seen to a fair and equitable settlement was contained in the propositions submitted to the House on a previous evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Elton). Any attempts to charge land for that purpose would be nugatory — simply to relieve persons upon the ground of religious opinion would never be accepted by that House. If he could have his own way, he would abolish church rates in towns and continue them in the country. What is wanted is a congregational law in towns, and the hon. Member for Bath proposed that congregations should in that case, have the right of managing their own affairs without the interference of the vestry. Why not let every parish decide for itself whether it would have such a congregational law or not? Ultimately, he admitted, that might put an end to church rates in every place—in towns at once, and in rural districts sooner or later, but that would depend on themselves. It was quite certain that ultimately church rates in their present form must be abolished, and he confessed he did not regard that circumstance with much alarm. He had confidence in the public spirit and zeal of his countrymen, and not the least of Churchmen, and did not doubt that, although in some cases fabrics might fall to decay, the mass of the churches of this country would be well maintained. At the same time he desired that justice should be meted out equally to the Churchmen as to the Dissenters, and he would not abolish the present law without providing for the former some substitute by which they could apply their voluntary offerings as they thought fit, and until some such provision was made he should feel it his duty to vote against the present measure.

MR. PACKE

said, he feared that if church rates were abolished, not a few of the fabrics would fall into decay: for he apprehended that the generosity which was represented to exist among the members of the Church was not quite so extensive as was supposed. At any rate he observed from returns during the last seven years, that the bankers and merchants of the City of London had only contributed £5,500 to the repairs of the churches of the metropolis, while the amount raised by rates was £80,000. It appeared to him that the Liberation Society had exercised a considerable influence over the Members of the House. He had carefully read the evidence taken before the Committee of 1851, and he did not think it bore out the asser- tions of the supporters of the present Bill. The hon. Member for Tavistock, when moving for that Committee, said that whatever the mode of providing funds for the repair of churches might be, it ought to be regular and uniform. That was before the Liberation Society had been established. Was the present opinion of the hon. Member consistent with that sentiment. It was quite the reverse, instead of maintaining his previous opinion, he now introduces a measure for the simple abolition of church rates. It was alleged that voluntary subscriptions would keep in repair the churches of parishes in which church rates were abolished. Let them see was this assertion founded upon fact. He found by one of the published Returns that there were upwards of 10,000 churches in England, of which there were no less than 1607 out of repair. It appeared, too, that in many of those towns in which church rates had not been levied the churches were out of repair. In Northampton there were three churches out of repair; in Leicester, two; in Birmingham, three; in Manchester, two; in Nottingham, one; in Leeds, one; in Bolton, two; in Liverpool, two. The same state of facts was to be found in Carlisle and other large towns. Since he had been a Member of that House, and that was not a few years, he had never known a more groundless opposition than that to the Bill of his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department. He could conceive that it must be painful to Nonconformists to pay church rates; but he was surprised that those who were members of the Church should vote for a Bill which should have the effect of lessening the means existing for the maintenance and repairs of churches. He was not a little surprised either at some of the names he found on the division list amongst the votes against the Bill of his right hon. Friend. He was persuaded at all events, that the right rev. Prelates in the Upper House would never consent to a measure which would deprive the Church of one of its most important sources of revenue.

MR. GREENWOOD

said, that no one was more strongly attached to the Church of England than himself, but there were times when he thought it was not only prudent and politic, but proper to waive privileges and not to insist upon rights, and such a time had, he believed, arrived with reference to church rates. They were well acquainted with the difficulties and dissensions which attended the collection of those rates, and the dislike with which they were regarded in many parishes. He thought, therefore, that it became the duty not only of every Churchman but of every Christian to use his best endeavours to restore peace and goodwill, and on that ground he would vote for the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) and the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) had both made unsuccessful attempts to settle the question, and he wished it to be understood that in voting for the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock he did so from a desire to meet Dissenters half-way, and for the sake of peace and harmony.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought it must be admitted, with the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. B. Osborne) that the time for compromise had gone by —at all events for the present—and he was willing to take the issue on the second reading of this Bill, It was impossible not to see and to admit that a very great change had taken place not only in the bearings of the question itself but in the arguments by which it was supported. Formerly they were told that church rates ought to be modified or abolished in order to meet the conscientious objections of Dissenters. Whatever else might be said of the Bill of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), it must at least be admitted that its effect would have been to relieve those conscientious objections, and to remove parochial dissensions and social differences. It had been defeated, not by Churchmen, but by Dissenters. The conclusion to be drawn from that fact was that the necessity for a change in the law no longer existed on the grounds formerly advanced by the opponents of church rates, and they must look elsewhere for the reasons which prompted the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock and those who supported him. Those reasons were to be found very broadly advanced in a publication to which he (Lord J. Manners) would not more particularly advert. They were that church rates should be abolished, first, because they were an absolute injustice to every one; and, secondly, not so much as being objectionable in themselves, as because they were part of a system the abolition of which was an object for which the Dissenters frankly avowed they intended to struggle—namely, the Established Church. He wished to take issue on these two grounds. He denied that it was any injustice to continue on landed property one of its most ancient imposts; and, in the second place, he said that it was the bounden duty of all who had the interest of the poor of the country at heart, and who desired to maintain the most honoured institutions of the country, to resist those who were looking forward to that which he might regard as the object of the Dissenters on the present occasion. he accepted the issues placed before him, and protested against the further progress of a Bill which would, he thought, inflict a gross injustice on the poor Church-people of this country. It appeared to him to be a most unnecessary and unwise policy to put into the pockets of the landlords of England funds which now went to provide the poor with that to which they were entitled. This Bill went to affirm that church rates were an injustice to every one, and was further intended as a step in the disestablishing of the Church of England; and for these two reasons he asked all Church people, whatever their views on the different compromises might be, to join Her Majesty's Government in resisting the further progress of the measure.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

, in replying, asked the noble Lord who had just addressed the House whether the abolition of the vestry cess in Ireland had had the effect of destroying the Church in that country? So far from that it had had the effect of maintaining it to the present day. The right hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Stuart Wortley) said it was not impossible that some clause might be introduced in Committee to make the abolition more acceptable to the Church. If he had any clause of that sort he should be disposed to give it due consideration.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided.

The Tellers being come to the Table, Sir John Trelawny, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, stated that Mr. Antrobus, Member for Wilton, not having heard the Question put, had not voted. Whereupon Mr. Speaker directed the Honourable Member for Wilton to come to the Table, and again stated the Question to him; on which the Honourable Member declared himself with the Ayes, and Mr. Speaker directed his vote to be added to the Aye?.

The Tellers accordingly declared the numbers—Ayes 242; Noes 1G8; Majority 74.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Dunlop, A. M.
Adeane, H. J. Egerton, E. C.
Agnew, Sir A. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Alcock, T. Ellice, E.
Anderson, Sir J. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Antrobus, E. Evans, Sir De L.
Ayrton, A. S. Evans, T. W.
Bagshaw, R. J. Ewart, W.
Bailey, C. Ewing, H. E. C.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Finlay, A. S.
Baker, R. W. FitzGerald, rt. hn. J. D.
Baring, H. B. FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.
Baring, T. G. Foley, H. W.
Bass, M. T. Forster, C.
Baxter, W. E. Fortescue, hon. F. D.
Beale, S. Fortescue, C. S.
Beamish, F. B. Fox, W. J.
Beaumont, W. B. Freestun, Col.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. French, Col.
Berkeley, F. W. F. Garnett, W. J.
Biggs, J. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Black, A. Gilpin, C.
Blake, J. Glyn, G. C.
Bonham-Carter, J. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. Greene, J.
Bouverie, hon. P. P. Greenwood, J.
Brand, hon. H. Greer, S. M'Curdy
Bright, J. Gregory, W. H.
Briscoe, J. I. Gregson, S.
Brocklehurst, J. Grenfell, C. P.
Brown, J. Grenfell, C. W.
Bruce, H. A. Greville, Col. F.
Buchanan, W. Grey, R. W.
Buckley, Gen. Gurney, S.
Bury, Visct. Hadfield, G.
Butler, C. S. Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.
Byng, hon. G. Hamilton, C.
Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G. Hanbury, R.
Hankey, T.
Campbell, R. J. R. Hardcastle, J. A.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Harris, J. D.
Cavendish, hon. W. Hartington, Marq.
Clay, J. Hatchell, J.
Clifford, C. C. Headlam, T. E.
Clifford, Col. Heneage, G. F.
Cobbett, J. M. Hodgson, K. D.
Codrington, Gen. Holland, E.
Coke, hon. W. C. W. Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Coningham, W. Hutt, W.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F. Ingram, H.
Cotterell, Sir H. G. Jackson, W.
Cowan, C. James, E. J.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Crossley, F. Johnstone, Sir J.
Dalglish, R. Keating, Sir H. S.
Davey, R. Kershaw, J.
Deasy, R. King, hon. P. J. L.
Denison, hn. W. H. F. Kinglake, A. W.
Dent, J. D. Kingscoto, R. N. F.
De Vere, S. E. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Devereux, J. T. Kirk, W.
Dillwyn, L. L. Knatchbull-Hugessen E.
Dodson, J. G. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Duff, M. E. G. Langston, J. H.
Duff, Major L. D. G. Langton, H. G.
Duke, Sir J. Laslett, W.
Dunbar, Sir W. Levinge, Sir R.
Duncan, Visct. Lindsay, W. S.
Duncombe, T. Locke, Joseph
Dundas, F. Locke, John
Luce, T. Scholefield, W.
Macarthy, A. Scrope, G. P.
MacEvoy, E. Shafto, R. D.
Maguire, J. F. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Mainwaring, T. Sheridan, H. B.
Marjoribanks, D. C. Slaney, R. A.
Marshall, W. Smith, J. A.
Martin, C. W. Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Martin, P. W. Smith, A.
Martin, J. Smith, Sir F.
Massey, W. N. Smyth, Col.
Matheson, A. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.
Melgund, Visct.
Mills, T. Stanley, Lord
Mitchell, T. A. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Moffatt, G. Stapleton, J.
Monsell, rt. hon. W. Steel, J.
Monson, hon. W. J. Stuart, Lord J.
Morris, D. Stuart, Col.
Napier, Sir C. Sykes, Col.
Nicoll, D. Thompson, Gen.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Thornely, T.
Norris, J. T. Thornhill, W. P.
Onslow, G. Tomline, G.
Osborne, R. Trueman, C.
Paget, C. Turner, J. A.
Paxton, Sir J. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Vivian, H. H.
Perry, Sir T. E. Vivian, hon. J. C. W.
Philips, R. N. Walter, J.
Pigott, F. Watkins, Col. L.
Pilkington, J. Weguelin, T. M.
Pinney, Col. Western, S.
Pugh, D., Carmerthen C. Westhead, J. P. B.
Ramsay, Sir A. Whatman, J.
Ramsden, Sir J. W. Whitbread, S.
Raynham, Visct. White, J.
Rebow, J. G. Wickham, H. W.
Ricardo, O. Willcox, B. M'G.
Rich, H. Williams, W.
Ridley, G. Willoughby, Sir H.
Robartes, T. J. A. Wilson, J.
Roebuck, J. A. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Rothschild, Baron L. de Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Rothschild, Baron M. de Wood, W.
Roupell, W. Woods, H.
Russell, H. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Russell, A. Wyld, J.
Saint Aubyn, J. Young, A. W.
Salisbury, E. G.
Salomons, Ald. TELLERS.
Samuelson, B. Trelawny, Sir J.
Schneider, H. W. Cox, W.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Bridges, Sir B. W.
Akroyd, E. Bruce, Major C.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen. Burghley, Lord
Baillie, C. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Baillie, H. J. Cairns, Sir Hugh M'C.
Bernard, hon. Col. Calcraft, J. H.
Barrow, W. H. Carden, Sir R. W.
Bathurst, A. A. Cartwright, Col.
Beach, W. W. B. Cecil, Lord R.
Beecroft, G. S. Child, S.
Bennet, P. Christy, S.
Bentinck, G. W. P. Churchill, Lord A. S.
Beresford, rt. hon. W. Close, M. C.
Blackburn, P. Cobbold, J. C.
Boldero, Col. Codrington, Sir W.
Botfield, B. Cole, hon. H. A.
Bramley-Moore, J. Cole, hon. J. L.
Bramston, T. W. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Cross, R. A. Lygon, hon. F.
Curzon, Visct. Macartney, G.
Davison, R. Malins, R.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Manners, Lord J.
Drummond, H. March, Earl of
Du Cane, G. Maxwell, hon. Col.
Duncombe, hon. A. Miles, W.
Duncombe, hon. Col. Miller, T. J.
Du Pre, C. G. Mills, A.
East, Sir J. B. Montgomery, Sir G.
Edwards, H. Moody, C. A.
Egerton, W. Morgan, O.
Elcho, Lord Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Elmley, Visct. Naas, Lord
Emlyn, Visct. Neeld, J.
Estcourt, rt. hn. T. H. S. Newdegate, C. N.
Farquhar, Sir M. Newport, Visct.
Fellowes, E. Nisbet, R. P.
Ferguson, Sir R. Noel, hon. G. J.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. North, Col.
Forster, Sir G. Northcote, Sir S. H.
Gard, R. S. Ossulston, Lord
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Packe, C. W.
Goddard, A. L. Pakenham, Col.
Graham, Lord W. Pakington, rt, hn. Sir J.
Greaves, E. Palmer, R.
Griffith, C. D. Patten, Col. W.
Grogan, E. Peel, rt. hon. Gen.
Gurney, J. H. Pennant, hon. Col.
Haddo, Lord Pevensey, Visct.
Hall, Gen. Philipps, J. H.
Hamilton, Lord C. Pugh, D., Montgomery
Hanbury, hon. Capt. Puller, C. W. G.
Handley, J. Robertson, P. F.
Hardy, G. Rust, J.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Scott, H. F.
Henniker, Lord Scott, Major
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Seymer, H. K.
Hodgson, W. N. Shirley, E. P.
Hopwood, J. T. Sibthorp, Major
Hornby, W. H. Smollett, A.
Hotham, Lord Spooner, R.
Hudson, G. Stirling, W.
Hume, W. W. F. Steuart, A.
Ingestre, Visct. Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Johnstone, hon. H. B. Sturt, H. G.
Johnstone, J. J. H. Taylor, Colonel
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Tollemache, J.
Jolliffe, H. H. Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Jones, D. Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Kekewich, S. T. Vance, J.
Kendall, N. Vansittart, G. H.
Kerrison, Sir E. C. Vansittart, W.
King, J. K. Verner, Sir W.
Knatchbull, W. F. Waddington, H. S.
Knight, F. W. Walcott, Adm.
Knightly, R. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Knox, Col. Walsh, Sir J.
Knox, hon. W. S. Welby, W. K.
Langton, W. G. Whitmore, H.
Lefroy, A. Wyndham, Gen.
Legh, G. C. Wynn, Col.
Lennox, Lord A. F. Wynne, W. W. E.
Liddell, hon. H. G. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Lisburne, Earl of
Lockhart, A. E. TELLERS.
Lovaine, Lord Deedes, W.
Lyall, G. Hope, A. J. B.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Tuesday next.

Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,

House adjourned at live minutes after Six o'clock.