Commons Sitting of 27 April 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stock Jobbing.
2° Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction.
3° Church Rates Abolition; Jews Act Amendment.

OFFICE OF CORONER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, that he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to propose to Parliament any measure to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on the office of Coroner?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS, in reply, said, he had a Bill now on the Orders of the House, giving an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench in cases of dispute between County Magistrates and Coroners. Since that Bill was introduced, the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had sat and made a Report. There were several of the recommendations of the Committee he should be disposed to adopt, either by bringing in a now Bill or by amending the Bill now before the House. But the main recommendation—namely, that the Coroners should be paid by salary and not by fees, he was not disposed to adopt. It appeared to him that if they were paid by salary, there would be no security for the adequate performance of the duties.

METROPOLITAN TOLL GATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. INGRAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the notice of a public auction for the immediate letting of certain Toll Gates in the Metropolis, and also, whether he intends to take steps to prevent such auction, and to introduce to the House a measure to abolish the Turnpike Gates within the Metropolis? He was induced to ask the question, because that House had some two or three years ago agreed to an Address to the Crown for the issuing of a Royal Commission, with the view to the abolition of those gates.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was aware that notice had been given accord-

  219
  ing to the usual practice for the letting of the toll gates by public auction. There was nothing in the circular to call for animadversion from any public authority. With regard to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member, he coincided with the Report of the Commissioners, that it would be desirable to abolish some of the toll gates immediately adjoining the metropolis. He had been in communication with the Metropolitan Commissioners to effect that object, but he had not as yet been able to arrange with them any practical measure; and even if he had, in the present state of the business of the House he did not think there would be any use of introducing a Bill on the subject.

SLAVE TRADE IN COOLIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps the Government are taking to stop the Slave Trade in Coolies between China and Cuba?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas understood to say, that a trade of the kind alluded to had been carried on with great secrecy in foreign vessels. "When the Governor of Hong-Kong became aware of the fact, he gave the most stringent instructions on the subject; and the Commissioners of the allied Powers at Canton adopted some measures to put a stop to the system, which were for some short time successful. The Spanish authorities of Cuba had issued directions that after the 1st July, 1861, no Asiatic should be introduced into Cuba; but our Officer at the Havannah said he feared that that regulation would have the effect of giving increased activity to the slave trade. He had received that day a despatch from Mr. Bruce, in which he said that the Ministers of Spain and Great Britain had endeavoured to come to some arrangement by which a stop would be put to this practice. Mr. Bruce's communication was under the consideration of the Government, and it was to be hoped that some effectual measures would be taken to prevent the continuance of the trade referred to.

DISTURBANCES IN BENGAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any official accounts of the
  220
  origin and causes of the late disturbances among the Ryots in Lower Bengal; and whether any measures are in contemplation for increasing the number of European Magistrates and for improving the police generally in Bengal in accordance with the recommendations of the late Lieutenant Governor r By the last mail he believed that intelligence had been received of the increase of the disturbances.

OUDE CROWN JEWELS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would beg to ask the fate of the Lucknow Jewels taken at the Residency, and which belong to the King of Oude; and whether it is true that they have been returned to the King.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) that it was possible some official letters had arrived that morning, but he had not seen them, and therefore he was unable to give any authentic information on the subject. He had, however, received private letters containing information on the subject, and stating that measures for the increase of the Police were in contemplation.
  In reference to the question of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir M. Farquhar) certain Jewels which belonged to the Princes of Oude were carried into the Residency before the siege. He could not say what had become of them. But the King of Oude had lately applied for some Jewels that had belonged to him, and the Governnor General had ordered them to be given up. He could not say whether they were the State Jewels or not.

REPORTED DISASTER IN THE PEIHO

  QUESTION.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Government, Whether there is any truth in the report of the sinking of two English frigates, the Dove and Algerine, by the guns of the forts on the Peiho river?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that a despatch had been received from Admiral Hope, dated Hong-Kong, March 15, in which it was stated that the Sampson had arrived, and that the day before she was in company with the two vessels reported to be sunk. Therefore, there was no reason to suppose that the report in question was founded in truth.

  221
  On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday,

CONDUCT OF THE INDIAN CADETS IN EGYPT—QUESTION.
MR. MILDMAYsaid, that he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India, to the statements published in The Times of the 23rd inst., which represented the conduct of the Indian Cadets in passing through Egypt as "systematically outrageous," and to ask him whether there was any truth in the charge thus made; and if so, whether he was prepared to take steps for discovering and punishing past offenders, and for exercising more control over those young gentlemen for the future. It was alleged that the Cadets entered the great mosque at Cairo while a religious ceremony was being performed, and the Viceroy was present; and they misconducted themselves so grossly, that by the direction of the Viceroy they were turned out of the building. This was not a mere ordinary disturbance. It was most important for the safety of our Indian Empire that the privilege of transit through Egypt should be maintained; but could we expect to maintain it, considering the sensitiveness of Eastern nations in matters of religion, if such outrages were continued? If the officers alluded to in The Times were really guilty of such conduct, they showed themselves ill qualified for their future position in India, a country where it was essential that every respect should be paid to the religious prejudices of the Natives. If, on the other hand, the offenders were not officials, it was necessary that some special power should be given to our representatives in Egypt, by which they should I be enabled to exercise some control over the English passengers. The question was not merely whether the transit should be made unpleasant to succeeding passengers—far more important results were at stake. The Mahomedans had the means of spreading, with extraordinary rapidity, any news relating to their religion; and who could tell that what was done out of contempt for Mahomedanism in Cairo might not produce a bad effect among the fanatical tribes on our north-western frontier? France had always been carrying on intrigues against us in Egypt, her object apparently being to render our tenure of the transit route precarious, and, upon a favourable opportunity, to interrupt it
222
altogether. The Suez Canal was, no doubt, projected with this view; for a large number of Frenchmen would thereby have been brought into Egypt, and would have established for France a greater hold upon the country. Hitherto we had been able effectually to maintain the transit, owing to the friendly relations which existed with the Porte, and the profit derived by the latter; but, if these outrages upon the Mahomedan religion were repeated, the Porte might no longer be inclined to allow the use of this route by England.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question, he wished to observe that gentlemen going to India had a right to complain of an anonymous accusation, charging them with the commission of systematic outrages. The account in The Times set forth that "we" had ascertained that the Indian Cadets were guilty of these offences. Who were the "we" here referred to? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would try to ascertain this, and, if necessary, would prosecute the accuser for gross calumny. As to the specific case mentioned, it was stated in a letter in The Times that at the moment when this outrage was said to have taken place at Cairo, the Bombay passengers had left Suez and were on the voyage to Aden. Under the old règime the Court of Directors were in the habit, when they sent out Cadets, of placing them in the charge of an officer who was bound to send a report to the Court of Directors of the conduct of the individuals under his charge, and if any one misconducted himself, the Court of Directors would send orders with regard to his disposal afterwards in India. In this way they were enabled to ascertain what was the conduct of Cadets after leaving this country, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) whether he had received systematic reports from India on this point, and whether there was on record a single instance of outrages of this description?

SALE OF GAS ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BYNGsaid, this Act had been passed at the fag-end of last Session, at a time when there was a thin attendance, and there were several points connected with its construction on which doubt existed. He wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether its provisions, which would come into operation on the

  223
  13th of next May, were compulsory or permissive; whether the magistrates at Quarter-Sessions would be allowed to defray out of the county rates not only the expenses of the inspectors, but the pay of sub-inspectors and of labourers, who would be required to assist the inspectors, the cost of stations, and of model gas-holders; and if so, whether the small remuneration (six-pence) to be allowed for stamping the models, would be increased by a Supplemental Bill? In Middlesex the cost of the new system would, it was estimated, amount to £2,000 a year; and if only sixpence were allowed for stamping the models, the result would be to throw a heavy additional burden on the ratepayers.

FRENCH SILK DUTIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade answered the question of the hon. Member, he was anxious to call his attention to a subject of the greatest importance to some of his constituents. He was informed that at that moment negotiations with the Government of France were going on as to the basis upon which the 30 per cent duty upon our silk goods entering France was to be determined. He recollected the difficulty that had existed with the American Government upon the subject of those valuations. If the valuations were real, 30 per cent might be said to amount to something like a prohibition. He had seen the French accounts of the mode in which those valuations were made. The valuation of those goods was enormously higher than that which was put upon them at the Custom House on their arrival. The House would feel he was only doing his duty in calling the attention of the Government to this question, inasmuch as a large body of persons whom he represented were already plunged into deep distress by the execution of those Treaties. He trusted attention would be given to the subject, so that the valuation upon which an ad valorem duty was to be assessed in France should not be such as to enhance the duty beyond even the fair 30 per cent that was to be levied upon silk and mixed goods, so that, in fact, that 30 per cent would not be calculated upon the fictitious value that was usually put upon them by the French Government. If there was a mistake on this subject it would render the 30 per cent absolutely prohi-
  224
  bitory on the whole produce of England in that branch of manufacture.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that in answer to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, he had to state that the Board of Trade was in no wise responsible for the Gas Act. In fact it was not a Government measure; and the Board of Trade possessed no authority under the Act. He was quite unable to give a legal explanation of the various clauses, or as to the mode in which the expenses incurred in carrying out the Act were to be defrayed. All that the Board of Trade had to do with it was simply this:—The Treasury wrote a letter asking whether the Act was a practicable one. The Board took it into consideration and consulted the Astronomer Royal, and their reply to the Treasury was, that it did not appear to them to be at all impracticable, and so the matter, as far as the Board of Trade was concerned, terminated.
  With regard to the question of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he must beg him to understand that the Commissioners were not about to negotiate upon any new basis or principle, but merely to carry the out details and the provisions of the Treaty already made between the Governments of England and France. There could be no doubt that it would be the earnest desire of the Commissioners to carry out these provisions in the most satisfactory manner.
  MR. PHILIPPSsaid, that with reference to the Sale of Gas Act, another question arose than that put to the Board of Trade. That question was whether it was just or not; seeing, for example, that it contained a clause for taxing persons who were practically strangers to the use of gas. He (Mr. Philipps) was aware that theoretically speaking, every Member ought to know the contents of every Bill that came before the House; but everybody knew that that was impossible. But certainly no one would have expected to find in a Gas Bill provisions affecting the county rates. The Bill was introduced at the fag-end of the last Session—it was, in fact, the very last measure that was passed; and when he heard it had passed and became acquainted with its provisions, he wrote to his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire on the subject, who replied that it had passed without his knowledge. He (Mr. Philipps) put it to the House that if a measure passed without the right hon. Gentleman being privy to it, it must have passed in a surreptitious manner.

THE RATE-PAYING RETURNS.—THE REFORM BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he was anxious to put a question to the President of the Poor Law Hoard upon a subject that was just then of considerable importance. In the course of the discussion upon the Reform Bill many doubts had been cast upon the accuracy of the Returns which had been obtained by the Government, and which had no doubt been taken as the basis for their Reform Bill. For instance, his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had stated it to be notorious that premises were very frequently rated at amounts below the rent for which they were let. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had told the House that these Returns made out the addition to the number of voters in that borough to amount to only 50 per cent, whereas, after a careful examination, he found that the actual increase would be 90 or 100 per cent. As the noble Lord the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department contended that the Returns were accurate, the matter was a vexata quœstio, and an effort ought to be made to settle it. The instructions from the Poor Law Board to the proper authorities in the different boroughs were clear and precise, but they required, in addition to the Returns that had been published, a return of all those who paid rates from £5 to £6. Such a Return had accordingly been furnished, but the Government having determined upon a £6 franchise had not thought it necessary to lay before the House the return of persons assessed at £5 and under £6, yet it was really important to have it, as affording information on a most material point. In reference to Hertford, one of his constituents, who was very well informed on the subject, in reply to an application from himself, had favoured him with a communication in which the whole matter was so conclusively stated that he would read it to the House. His correspondent said:—
"In answer to your inquiry, I do not think that the Parliamentary paper No. 124 shows the maximum increase that may be expected under the £6 franchise. The parish returns may, I think, be relied upon. The instructions from the Poor Law-Board, on which they are founded, are so clear and precise that the parish officers could not misunderstand them; but the whole of them are not given in No. 124, and I think that, in order to obtain the maximum under a £6 franchise, the returns from the parish officers in the column '£5 and under
226
£6' gross estimated rental should be taken into consideration. The returns from Hertford wore as follows:—£5 and under £6, 135; £6 and under £7, £75; £7 and under £8, 38; £8 and under £9, 98; £9 and under £10, 27; £10 and upwards, 541; but the '£5 and under £6' column is not given in No. 124. The number under that column is, you see, 135, and from inquiries that have been made, I am told that positively sixty of these are paying rents of £6 and upwards, and that probably more of them would come in under a £6 franchise. The error in the Government calculation, if an error it should turn out to be, appears to mo to be that they have taken the 'gross estimated rental' of the parish books as amounting to the same thing as the 'clear annual value' of the Reform Act. Perhaps, in law it ought to do so, but certainly in fact it does not. As far as Hertford is concerned, part 2 of No. 124 gives 238 only as the maximum increase for Hertford under the £6 franchise, whereas the real maximum would be, for the reasons I have stated above, about 300. Again, part 1, No. 124, seems designed to show the excess which the £6 franchise would give over the number of electors now on the register. The column relating to the number of electors gives 613 for Hertford in 1858–1859, whereas that is the number of names on the register book: but the real number of electors, as was clearly stated in the Hertford return, was only 539; the difference of 74 arises from the fact of duplicate qualifications. Then take the last column, for 'excess over electors,' this gives 166 only for Hertford, whereas, if the correct number of electors had been given, the excess would have been 240; and, if we add to this the number that would come in from the '£5 and under £6' column, the maximum would be at least 300 of excess, instead of only 166. I merely state how the matter stands as to Hertford. I know nothing about other boroughs, but it seems to me that return No. 124 does not give the maximum under a £6 franchise."
That statement clearly showed that proper conclusions could not be drawn from the Returns which had been produced. His hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury had also received a communication from a gentleman at Aylesbury, who said:—
"Lord John Russell's notion that about 220,000 voters will be added to the borough constituency is incorrect, and I feel persuaded that the increase will be at least 400,000. The fact is, that he bases his calculation upon the returns from the poor-rate; but the words in his Reform Bill are 'value or rental,' and my own impression is that if you take the two columns in the rate-book and find a house with a gross value of £5 and a rateable value of £4, it will nearly always command a rent of £6, and will consequently confer the vote as I understand; but all these cases are omitted in Lord John Russell's calculations as to the increase, because his returns only included properties which have a value of £6 attached to them in the poor-rate book. Everybody who has had any experience in the mode of making poor-rates well knows that the gross value in the poor-rate does not represent the rent, and of course the rateable value is still less."
A gentleman had written from Windsor

227
in a similar sense to his hon. Friend the Member for that borough (Mr. Hope):—
"I enclose you an account of the number of houses rated at sums varying from £5 to £6 but not including any at £6, which I have personally extracted from the rate-book, and can, therefore, rely upon. The rateable value of houses in "Windsor is at about two-thirds of the actual rent, and I have known several eases in which parties have claimed to be on the register as £10 householders, although only rated at £6 or £7."
As it was very important that the Returns upon which the action of the House was to be based should be accurate, he wished, for the sake of information, to ask the President of the Poor Law Board whether, in obtaining Returns of Male Persons resident within each Parliamentary City and Borough in England and Wales, or within seven miles thereof, assessed to the last Poor Rate made before the 7th of November, 1859, at £6, £7, £8, £9 and £10 and over, instructions were not issued for Returns, and Returns made, of Male Occupiers at £5 and under £6; and, if so, why such information was not given in the Return of Male Occupiers, No. 124, of the present Session?
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in answering the question which had just been asked upon this subject, he should not enter upon a matter which belonged to the general subject. He was asked whether the instructions for a Return of the male occupiers did not extend to that of £5 occupiers. His reply was, that the instructions did so extend. The reason why that information was not laid before the House in the Return numbered 124 was that he (Mr. Villiers) did not move for that Return. In the first place, these Returns were not made on any Motion of the House, but were Returns made for the information of the Government before they decided on the measure of Parliamentary Reform to be submitted to the House; and when it was decided to limit the franchise to £6 occupiers, he did not think it would be interesting to the House to know the number of male occupiers of a lower denomination. A wish had, however, since been expressed in the House for that Return; a Motion had been made on the subject; and he believed that the document would be laid on the table that evening. Up to this moment not the least reason had been found, in the department with which he was connected, for doubting the accuracy of the Returns. Whenever an instance of inaccuracy had been cited in the House, a particular inquiry had been instituted, and
228
the correctness of the Returns had been verified. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had stated, for instance, that there was a difference of 50 per cent between the numbers on the Returns and the real numbers in that borough, referring to the addition which would be made to the constituency. He thought that noble Lord must have had very precise information, and, in consequence, he directed special inquiries to be made as to the Return for King's Lynn, and the result of those inquiries was that the Return was perfectly accurate; therefore the statement of the noble Lord must have been made on somewhat inaccurate information. It was almost exactly the same with every other case of supposed inaccuracy which had been brought before the House. He did not pretend that the Returns in question were infallible; he did not say that there might not be some way of accounting for the discrepancy between the numbers stated by hon. Gentlemen and those which appeared in the Government Returns; but whenever an inquiry had been made, the accuracy of the Returns had been verified. The statement made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) had made a statement as to the inaccuracy of the Returns, offered no exception to this observation. He did not pretend to question the inquiries which his hon. and learned Friend said he had himself made, not only into the Return for his own borough, but into those of not less than eighty other boroughs to which he had extended his investigations. His hon. and learned Friend had stated the result of those inquiries very distinctly and emphatically to the House; and when any hon. Gentleman made a statement on his own word and honour, the House was bound to pause. He repeated that he did not deny the accuracy of his hon. and learned Friend's statement; but he did say that inquiries of the parochial officers had been instituted, and that up to that moment the Returns had been verified. He did not believe that a Return of those persons who were rated at £5 would prove of much more importance to hon. Members, because no one is likely to be placed on the rate-book at a higher valuation than the rent which he paid, and if he were placed on it at a lower value that fact would attract the notice of his neighbours, who would not allow him long to be favoured at their expense.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I must

229
express my surprise at hearing the right hon. Gentleman state that he adheres to the opinion that the Returns are accurate. I presume that what he means is this—that they are fairly copied from the rate-book. Is that his reason? [Mr. VILLIERS intimated his assent. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, I for one do not doubt it. I never imputed to the right hon. Gentleman that these are falsified lie-turns, or that the Government had any intention to deceive the House. What I have said is this—that these Returns convey to the House an erroneous impression as to the number of voters which will be added to the register under these respective amounts. And why? Because I maintain that the column in the rate-books headed "gross estimated rental" affords no accurate information as to the amounts of rental really paid. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly or not? Is that what he means when he says these Returns are accurate—that they are correctly copied from the rate-book? [Mr. C. P. VILLIERS: Yes.] I am very glad to hear that admission; the right hon. Gentleman has only told us what we never doubted; and I tell him that his answer is no answer at all to the point really at issue, and which is a point of immense importance in discussing this subject,—namely, what is to be the real addition to the constituencies. Since I brought this matter before the House I have had communications from, I was about to say, all parts of England; but, I may say, letters from many places containing local information as to what will be the real effect of a £6 franchise if adopted. They are unanimously to the effect that in the local knowledge of the parties writing, these Returns give no information whatever that can be relied on. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to what was said on a former occasion by my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). He says he has caused inquiry to be made in King's Lynn, and that he finds the Return for that borough to be perfectly correct; that the addition will be 50 per cent and not 100, as my noble Friend says. But the two statements are quite compatible. The right hon. Gentleman has been to the rate-book, and finds the addition to be 50 per cent; my noble Friend inquires into the real state of the case and finds it 100. Among the gentlemen from whom I have received letters on the subject is one who fills the office of Revising Barrister. His letter is
230
not marked "private," and I presume he has no objection to my repeating its contents. He says he revises the lists of voters for three of the most populous boroughs in Staffordshire, the Potteries, the town of Stafford, and Newcastle-under-Lyme; and that in those three boroughs he is in the habit of adding numbers of persons to the electoral roll who come before him and prove that they pay £10, or more than £10, rent, though they appear in the rent column of the rate-book at much lower amounts. I have no doubt the Returns are correctly copied from the rate-books; but that is no criterion; and the only complaint I make against the Government is this—that in making this Return to the House of Commons, professing as it does to be the guide as to what will be the real addition to the constituencies, they did not candidly state on the face of it that which is notorious to every person acquainted with these subjects, namely, that the "gross estimated rental" column of the rate-book is not a fair criterion by which to judge of the number of persons who pay a rent of £6. But within the last few days a little light has been thrown on the omission on the part of the Government. Every hon. Gentleman must have seen a very long letter which appeared in The Times newspaper a few days ago, signed "W. V. H." I read that letter because it bore on this interesting question, and I was struck with two things; first, that it was perfectly evident on the face of that letter that the writer of it, whatever he may know of the law, knows nothing of the practice of rating; secondly, that while he betrays his own want of knowledge on the subject, he indulges most indecorously and offensively in the abuse of every one who differs from him. But since I read that letter I have heard with surprise that the writer is a person who was employed by the Government to collect information for the purpose of compiling this very Return. I know nothing but common rumour for the authenticity of this report; but if it be true that the Government were induced by any reason whatever to intrust the collection of this information to a gentleman who, though he is a master of vituperative language, knows very little of the subject on which he writes, I am not surprised that the Government were misled, and that they did not convey to the House that information which it had a right to expect, but which it is quite clear that this gentleman was little calculated to impart.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought it right to take the opportunity of making an explanation to the House relative to statements which he had made a few evenings previous, when the accuracy of the Government Returns was under discussion. On that occasion he incidentally took part in the debate, and he then mentioned the fact that the Government estimates of the addition which would be made to the £10 constituency by the Reform Bill differed very materially from a private estimate which he had received. It would be recollected that on that occasion he carefully guarded himself from expressing any personal opinion as to which return was correct and which was incorrect, and that he contented himself with simply stating that the fact afforded a fair ground of inquiry. He felt bound, however, in fairness and justice to state to the House that he had that day received a letter from the gentleman who supplied him with that private estimate or return, in which he stated that, after having looked over and compared it with the official document they were now discussing, he was inclined to think that his own estimate was overrated, and that he did not doubt the general accuracy of the Government Returns. He hoped the House would do him the favour to bear in mind that he had expressed no opinion of his own on the subject, and he had now thought it his duty to state to the House what had since occurred with reference to the subject.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor-Law Board, if he had it in his power, would add to the Return a column, showing the number of persons who lived in houses between £4 and £5; because without that the House would not get full and accurate information on the subject. He begged to say he agreed with every word which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich. Every one conversant with rating knew that the column of gross estimated rental did not represent the actual rent paid to the landlord. They were, therefore, attaching different meanings to the same words. The President of the Poor Law Board had supposed that the accuracy of the Returns had been doubted. That was not the fact. The fact doubted was whether that Return represented the actual rent paid. He (Mr. Henley) confessed he was never more astonished in his life than when he heard the President of the Poor Law Board express an opinion
232
that it did accurately represent the rent paid. He knew very well, and he (Mr. Henley) knew, that it ought to represent the rent, but whether it did or not was a totally different thing. There was another thing that ought to be mentioned. All who were acquainted with rating knew that the difference between the real and estimated value was much greater, as they went lower in the scale. For what was called cottage property the rent, which was usually paid weekly, was always estimated at a figure proportionally much lower than the rent of larger houses, the rent of which was paid annually. He believed that in order to come to a correct estimate on this subject, they must give Returns as far down as £4, or the House would be misled as to the number of voters who would come in under the £6 rental. He did not say that without consideration. He had recently had an opportunity of comparing in a place very recently valued, under circumstances of very sharp litigation, within the last few years; and he had an opportunity of comparing the persons in the register as £10 householders, and he found that many of them were rated at a much lower figure than £10. Parishioners would not be at the trouble of a revaluation, and certainly there was no tendency to deteriorate in rateable value. He further thought the Government might have an opportunity of testing the accuracy of these Returns by means of the Returns to Schedule A of the property tax. He thought that these Returns, if the Government possessed them, though they would tell them nothing about the tenements, would give them something about the rentals. But throughout the whole country he did not believe the gross estimated rental was anything like the rent actually paid.
MR. PAGETsaid, he had made inquiries into the Returns for Nottingham and it might interest the House if he stated that the rate-book contained three columns—one for the rent actually received by the landlord, another for the net-rent, a third for the rateable value. The first column consisted, with regard to the houses which were compounded for, of the total payment by the tenant to the landlord for rent and rates; the second contained the net-rent, the point on which the House was seeking information; and then the rateable value was a calculated amount. He had received from several collectors of rents in Nottingham the actual amount of rent they re-

233
ceived for several hundreds of houses. He had had these compared with the rate-book, and the result was that the latter was found to be substantially correct, if not correct in every instance. His own belief was that they were entirely correct; and, contrary to his expectations, he found that the additional constituency in the ease of Nottingham would not be greater than had been stated by the Government.
MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he had made inquiries into the case of Liverpool, and was told that the Returns were correctly given by the Government. He thought, however, that they would give a very imperfect idea of the probable constituency owing to the wandering habits of the population, under £10 rental, and from the circumstance that so very few paid their full rates. He believed the additional number of voters would not be higher than from 4,000 to 5,000. Under the present qualification there are 39,730 tenements, but there were so many occupiers who did not pay the whole of their rates, that although at present the constituency was considered to be 18,000, after making the necessary deductions it was not in reality more than 16,000. On the supposition that the Reform Bill passed, the number of the constituency, according to the information he had obtained, would not exceed 20,000, or about 4 per cent of the whole population of Liverpool.
MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, he had taken considerable interest in the question I of rating, and his belief was that in the rural districts the gross estimated value did not represent the real rent of house property. He did not see how the Government could have obtained any Returns as to the real rental in all the parishes of England, as the rent was entirely a matter between the landlord and the tenant; and the Government was obliged to take the best Returns they could get. There was another consideration, that at present the £10 franchise did actually exist with respect to those who were entered on the rate-books for £10. A largo number of these would get themselves entered on the rate-books at less than £10, and these must be deducted from the gross estimated number of votes, whilst there must be added a certain number living in houses which were below £6 in value, though rated at that amount. So that the result would be pretty nearly six on one side and half a dozen on the other. It was impossible to obtain strict-
234
ly accurate Returns, but he believed that the Poor-law Returns were as accurate as could be.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Home Secretary to an observation he had made to the House. There was no person in the House whose authority was greater than the right hon. Gentleman's on that particular subject. He had been President of the Poor Law Board; he was now Secretary of the Home Department. It was well known that he paid great attention to the subject, and great weight had been attached to a statement he had made the other night, in his reply to the hon. Member for Leominster, that he believed the Returns which had been furnished to the Government of the gross estimated rental upon the whole represented fairly the number of persons who would claim under the £6 franchise. It was no doubt very difficult to obtain information from different parts of the country on this subject. In some places the Returns were very accurate, in others very inaccurate. In order to furnish himself with information relative to the mode of rating, he turned last evening to the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1850 on the Parochial Assessment Act, and to the most valuable Report made in 1843 by his hon. Friend the Secretary of State on local taxation. In the first the House would find it stated, on the authority of Mr. Lumley, the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, and of Mr. Hyde, the Inspector of Taxes, that the differences in valuation were very great, amounting, according to the former, to a large percentage on the estimated rental, and according to the latter, in one instance at least, to no less than 100 per cent. [Sir G. GREY: In rating?] In rating and rental both. The Report on local taxation stated that 4,400 tenements out of 15,000 had been valued, some by professional and others by independent valuers; that even when professional men made the valuation there was a difference between the real value of the tenements and the value as represented in the rate-book of 25 or 30 per cent; that when independent parties made the valuations, the inaccuracies were in some cases still greater—being, in some respects, greater than they had been before the valuation was made. The Report was signed by his right hon. Friend. It seemed to him that when a valuation took place under the Parochial Assessment Act, within six years of the time when it was made,

235
and when subsequent valuations had not taken place, the gross estimated rental would not furnish them with accurate data as to the number of persons brought in under the Reform Bill.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could give an illustration of the difficulty of getting accurate Returns of the value of property for rating. He had been Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for Devonshire, and they had the Woodbury case brought before them for settlement, after considerable delay and litigation. That was the first occasion on which he had anything to do with making a rate, and he inquired of his brother chairman what was the principle upon which the column of gross estimated rental was made up. His reply was as follows: "Get the gross estimated income by asking the tenant what he would give, he paying all taxes and tenant's rates. After that one-eighth would have to be deducted for repairs and cost of collection, and for house property take off 20 per cent." That was the rule laid down in Devonshire, which he merely mentioned as an illustration of the principle.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he very much agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, that if the Government had other information with regard to £5 or any other class of occupiers, the more information the House had the better. He was satisfied himself that it would show the enormous magnitude of the class of householders who, after the Reform Bill of the Government was passed, would be still excluded from the franchise. He wished, not in an unfriendly spirit, to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite were acting not very intelligently or fairly in the matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire admitted, he believed, that the investigations were complete, and as good probably as he himself would have drawn up. He (Mr. Bright) himself thought, at one time, from reading some paragraphs which had appeared in some of the newspapers, that the Returns were not accurate; but he had taken the trouble to get from the borough in which he lived the most minute information, and also to see the instructions which had been sent down to the officials. He submitted those instructions to a friend who was more competent than himself to discuss the matter, and that gentleman had come to the opinion which he (Mr. Bright) had previously formed, that was utterly impos-
236
sible for human ingenuity to frame instructions more complete, comprehensive, and to the point, in every particular, than the instructions which were sent out by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board. Those instructions went down to the officers of the several parishes, townships, and boroughs throughout the kingdom. The House could not, however, be sure that all the men who made the Returns were of equal capacity or intelligence, and it was possible many mistakes were made. He was told that there was a very curious mistake from the borough represented by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade. It was quite possible that that might be so; but what he (Mr. Bright) complained of was that hon. Gentlemen opposite discussed the question as if the Government had intended to lay before the House unfair Returns. He did not think the hon. Member for Hertfordshire meant that, but he was sure the House would feel that in every discussion which had taken place upon that measure there had been rather a passionate disposition shown to lay a charge against the Government as if they wanted to conceal the actual number of voters that were about to be admitted to the franchise. With regard to the main question, he was disposed to agree with the Earl of Derby, who said—and he wished hon. Gentlemen opposite would act upon the noble Lord's advice a little oftener—that he was not afraid of numbers, and that what he wanted was the quality of voters. Whether the number was 200,000 or two millions was altogether indifferent to Lord Derby if the quality of the voters was satisfactory. ("Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) He was delighted to find such a general agreement upon that point. He wished to make one observation with regard to the £6 voters, whether according to those or any other returns, a house, to get upon the list, must have a £7 rental, because the amount of rate upon a £7 house should he so much—taking the borough rate, the church and poor rates, &c, into consideration—as to bring the holder of a £7 house down to £6, or even below £6; and the. House would find that the vision which some hon. Members had of the extravagant number of persons to be enfranchised would turn out to be visions indeed. He believed it was utterly impossible even to collect a constituency at all approaching to the numbers which were stated in the Returns. He took the trouble, in the borough of

237
Rochdale, where he resided, and also with regard to Birmingham and Manchester and Salford, to make inquiries as to the accuracy of the Returns, and he found that there was no complaint whatever that they were inaccurate. There was another point in the Returns to which he would allude. The Government deducted 27½ per cent from the number in the Returns, and some friends of his in Manchester who were connected with a political reform association, not knowing in the slightest degree, any more than he did, what course the Government were taking in the matter, made some calculations based on the number of £10 electors which were produced by a certain number of £10 occupiers, and they came to the conclusion that, at least, 28 per cent was necessary to be deducted before the number of persons was obtained who were at all likely to have the franchise. It must also be borne in mind that all the causes which, above £10, diminished the number of electors as compared with occupiers, would have almost a redoubled force in the constituencies below £10 occupiers. He was therefore satisfied that the number of electors would be very much less than was feared by some hon. Members of that House, and, he was sorry to add, very much less than he wished.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he rose simply to state that so far from supposing the Returns were placed before the House by the Government in any unfair spirit, he actually said to the right hon. Baronet opposite that he only asked for information, and that he made his request in no hostile spirit.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, that his information as to the operation of the noble Lord's Bill in Liverpool differed very much from that of his hon. Colleague. His hon. Friend stated that the whole constituency of Liverpool under the new Bill would not exceed 20,000. Now, the constituency at present numbered 18,700, and, adding the 3,000 or 4,000 new voters admitted by his hon. Friend to be enfranchised, the number, on his hon. Friend's own showing, would be more than 23,000. He estimated, on the contrary, that the whole number, with the additions under the present Bill, would exceed 30,000. The value of houses in Liverpool was such that the suffrage under the Bill would be really and truly a household suffrage.
MR. KENDALLsaid, he had no doubt that this would prove an unpleasant question for the hon. Member for Birmingham.
238
His attention was called to the subject in consequence of what had taken place in the other House in a discussion which took place there the other night—
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that he was incorrect in the course he was pursuing of alluding to what had taken place in the other House.
MR. KENDALLapologized, and stated that from inquiries he had made, he was satisfied that these Returns contained great inaccuracies. Having heard that the question whether or not the gross estimated rental and the actual rental were the same, had been raised in "another place," he wrote to a gentleman in Bodmin for information as to the state of matters in that borough. The answer of his friend was that he had very carefully gone over the whole of the rate-book, and as he knew perfectly well the rental of all the houses in Bodmin, he was prepared to prove that there was a difference between the gross estimated rental and the actual rental, varying from 15 to 35 per cent; and, as an instance, he gave a house of his own, which was let for £37 10 s., while it stood on the rate-book for £28, and was rated at £21. He (Mr. Kendall) thought there could not be a stronger evidence than this that the gross estimated rental and the actual rental were two very different things. No one meant to insinuate that the Government, in giving these Returns, wished to mislead the House; but what they wanted to show was this—that the Government had no data before them on which they could construct their Bill. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary refer, in proof of the accuracy of these Returns, to the auditors of the unions. Why, the fact was that the auditors of unions know nothing whatever about the matter.
MR. BARROWsaid, he could not suffer the discussion to close without giving the house his personal knowledge on the matter. He had made inquiries on this subject from the overseers of a parish of moderate size, who told him that there were a number of houses in the parish not included in the Returns at all, because they were compounded for by the landlord as under £6, though the actual rental was above that sum. He was satisfied, therefore, that no dependence could be placed on those Returns. But he rose to suggest to the Government that they had gone to the wrong office for information on the

239
point, and that they might ascertain exactly what was the number of £6 rented houses throughout England if they had applied to the surveyors of taxes, who could call the assessors of taxes to their aid when they found it necessary. In that way the Government might have obtained accurate information, which was most material to them in the present measure, though he admitted the point was of no importance at all if they were to come to universal suffrage.

UNREPORTED CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. MACKIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department, or the Lord Advocate, upon what grounds instructions had been issued to the Queen's Remembrancer to limit the Allowances in Exchequer, under the head of "Unreported Criminal Prosecutions?"
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was informed that, in the opinion of the Lord Advocates in the late and the present Government, it was desirable to introduce the change, in order to get rid of unnecessary expense.

THE REFORM BILL.—THE NEW VOTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that before he put the question, of which he had given notice, he wished, as his name had been mentioned in the somewhat interlocutory discussion which had taken place on the returns of householders, to say but one word. There had been a great deal of assertion on one side, and of counter assertion on the other; but the critical analysis, which was to be performed in "another place," would soon show who was in the right, and who was in the wrong. He desired to say that he had never himself impugned, nor had he heard any other hon. Member in the House do so, either the intention of the Government in procuring the Returns, or the accuracy of the figures in themselves. All he meant to express was, his opinion that the noble Lord, the Member for London, was inaccurate in stating that the Returns he laid on the Table would show an additional number of voters of 150,000 only. [Lord J. RUSSELL: 190,000.] He believed the noble Lord's statement was about 200,000 in round numbers. That was all the charge he made—that the noble Lord's statement
240
was inaccurate. That point would probably soon be decided: and the sooner the better; for it was painful to find the hon. Members for Liverpool differing so widely as to the number of their future constituents—one saying it would be 21,000— the other 30,000. He rose, however, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure to provide for the registration for this year of many persons who become entitled to vote in the event of the Representation of the People Bill being passed into law during the present Session of Parliament? This was a question of very considerable importance. As the Bill stood, it had no machinery whatever for the registration or revision of a new constituency. He was anxious to know whether that arose from an oversight on the part of the Government, which would be corrected by bringing in a Subsidiary Bill to supply the defect, or whether it had been intentionally done, and they meant to leave the law as it stood, without proposing any new measure on the subject. Assuming the Reform Bill to pass into law during the present Session, the Government could not hope that it would do so before the 20th of July. The system of registration, as at present provided for, commenced in July; and this being so, it would not include the new constituencies to be created under this Bill. The Reform Bill of 1832 received the Royal Assent on the 7th of June; and it prescribed, for the first time, the whole system of registration and revision. The operation began on the 20th of June; lists were made out; and all the new voters were placed on the register. The Reform Bill of last Session, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, contained a series of elaborate clauses, most ably drawn, and conferring great credit on the lawyer who prepared them, regulating the system of registration, and also a provision, necessary to any Reform Bill, that in the event of the Bill passing into law, a new system of registration should be at once commenced. Unless the Government meant to introduce a subsidiary Bill, there would be a perfect chaos of confusion. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) provided that the registration should commence immediately after the new Bill passed. The present Bill made no such provision; but he inferred, from one of its clauses, that the Government did not in-

241
tend the new constituencies to be registered, or become voters, until 1862; and he would tell the House why. He hoped that this Bill, though a mere skeleton, would pass in the present Session: but if it did so it must be too late for the coming registration, county claims being made on the 20th of July, and borough claims on the 31st of August. As the law stood, the registration of the year 1860 would last until the 31st of December, 1861: therefore, in the event of the Bill passing, and being too late for the present year's registration, the register of the year 1860 would be the register of voters until the end of 1861; and assuming that an election occurred next year, the new constituent body would not be on the register at all. By the 20th section of the Bill the new voters were to remain, subject to the conditions at present affecting voters, and were to be entitled to be placed on the county and borough registers, on and after 1860. But the register of 1860 was in force for the whole of 1861; consequently those not registered in 1860 could not vote till 1862. This being the case, he wanted to know whether the Government contemplated a dissolution on the passing of this Bill; if so, they surely could not mean the election to take place on the old constituency. What a manifest injustice this would be, and what alarm and confusion it would excite in the country. He did not ask the Government whether they meant to dissolve on the passing of this Bill; that was a question of policy for themselves to decide; but circumstances might bring about a dissolution in the spring without the Government intending it. The Government were just then in the heyday of their popularity; but in the height of prosperity calamities might sometimes happen; and the Government might be wrecked suddenly—
"Like ships that have gone down at sea,
When heaven was all tranquillity."
A dissolution might take place in spite of them, and he hoped that the Government would state whether they meant to introduce a subsidiary Bill, or to rely on the law as it stood, by which the new constituency could have no votes till 1862.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Government were quite ready to go into Committee on the Reform Bill whenever it should please the House to read it the second time, but he did not think their debates on the Bill would be abridged by their proceeding then to discuss its clauses with
242
respect either to registration or any other point. He trusted therefore that the hon. and learned Member would forgive him if he did not follow him through the somewhat long argument he had addressed to the House. He could only say that the clauses relating to registration which had been introduced into the Bill were not the result of oversight, but were deliberately considered by the Government, who thought they had a clear view of the effect which those clauses would have in the event of the Bill passing in time for the registration of the present year. The Bill of last year necessarily contained a number of elaborate clauses with respect to registration, because it introduced a number of new and peculiar franchises which could not have been dealt with under the existing law. But inasmuch as the present Bill merely proposed to extend existing franchises, and not to introduce any franchise of a new description, all the Government intended to do was simply to make the existing machinery for registration applicable to the extended franchises. The provisions of the Bill were quite adequate for that purpose; but if it should turn out that, owing to the lateness of the period at which the Bill might be passed, Amendments would be required in the clauses, he and his Colleagues would be glad to consider that question in the Committee. Before he sat down, he wished to refer briefly to a statement made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), with respect to a gentleman who was employed in the first instance to collect electoral statistics. He was glad to find that it was the general opinion on both sides of the House that the Government acted with good faith and sincerity in seeking to obtain the Returns in question, with the view of guiding their own decision and ultimately the decision of the House. They were uncertain, when they began their inquiries last autumn, as to the best mode of obtaining the information. The mode which first occurred to them was that of employing certain persons, chiefly barristers, to make inquiries in a number of selected boroughs, in the hope that those boroughs might serve as specimens for the entire country. Mr. Vernon Harcourt was the first of the persons so employed. He visited two or three boroughs, but he reported to the Government that it was extremely difficult, without going through the rate-books, and submitting to an amount of drudgery which

243
barristers would not willingly incur, to obtain accurate results, and he added that, in his opinion, a partial inquiry into a limited number of selected boroughs would not be satisfactory. Thereupon the Government abandoned the mode of inquiry which they had adopted in the first instance, and determined to send instructions through the Poor Law Board to every borough in the kingdom. Mr. Vernon Harcourt had no connection with the second inquiry, but it was conducted entirely by the officers of the Poor Law, who received a small remuneration in order to insure greater accuracy. The Return on the table was obtained by the Poor Law Board. His impression, derived from all the information he had received on the subject, and confirmed by inquiries instituted for the purpose by the Poor Law Board, was that, in respect to boroughs, the column of gross estimated rental, as distinguished from the column containing the rateable value, represented on the whole with tolerable accuracy the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord. He was quite aware that in particular cases inaccuracy existed, but for legislative purposes it might be taken as an approximation sufficiently close to guide that House to a practical conclusion. It was clear that no statement of that kind could be strictly correct, and some discrepancies between the rent really paid and the gross estimated rental as entered in the rate-book must exist, though it was not likely that in any considerable number of cases a higher rental was entered in the rate-book than that actually paid. It might be presumed that, where there was a difference, it was something less than more than the real rent. Therefore, the error must undoubtedly be on the side of deficiency. The matter was one of fact, no doubt, and it was no imputation on the accuracy of the Returns if it should prove on inquiry that the gross estimated rental did not approximate closely to the real rental, for that was a question beyond the Return. If it could be shown that the belief of the Government on that point was wrong, he should be quite ready to admit, like the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that he was in error. The Government had no particular object in the question except to ascertain the truth. A material circumstance, however, had been pointed out by the hon. Member the original author of the Assessment Act, that in the original estimates founded on these Returns credit had been given for every-
244
thing between £10 and £6. If the hon. Member's arguments were correct it was clear that a large portion of those under £10 must in fact be existing voters; therefore, whatever was added from those between £6 and £5 must to a certain, if not to an equal, extent, be compensated by the deductions made for those between £10 and £9, or between £9 and £8, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had remarked, there might probably be a greater tendency to undervalue in the lower than in the upper strata.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should like to know if any application had been made to the Income Tax Commissioners relative to these Returns. He had heard of a case where the Commissioners had put 25 per cent on the gross estimated rental, and when remonstrated with, the reply was that the properly of the parish was notoriously rated low to reduce the quota to be paid towards the county and highway rates.
MR. BOVILLsaid, there could be no doubt the Government had done their best to obtain correct information; but he believed a mistake had been made in addressing the returns to the poor law auditors, men who practically knew nothing about the subject, instead of the magistrates at quarter sessions, or barristers who had been at quarter sessions, and who knew practically what the fact was. He was in a position to inform the House, on the authority of the town-clerk, that the gross estimated rental in Guildford was in every case below the actual value, but that the proportion in which that difference existed was anything but uniform; and the town-clerk added that he noticed, on inspecting the rate-book, that some houses were put down to the gross rental at little more than one-half of the actual rent, and he thought that from one-third to one-fourth was about the average difference between the gross estimated rental and the actual rental. Under all the circumstances it was evident that more accurate information should be obtained.

MILITIA OFFICERS (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the hardship and inconvenience experienced by Militia officers, called out for training in Ireland in places where

  245
  there is no barrack accommodation, in not receiving lodging money where the troops were billeted. Militia officers in Ireland suffered under great disadvantages, and were charged most exorbitantly by the innkeepers upon whom they were quartered. He believed that very little good was derived from the mode in which the traing of those regiments was conducted. The men were billeted apart from the officers, whose control over them was thereby greatly impaired. Great sums were spent on the Militia, and the force had been entirely remodelled during the last seven years, but he ventured to say that they were in no better condition now than when they were first remodelled, because although certain regiments had been brought into discipline, as they were disembodied many men were lost and never returned. By a Return dated March 6 last, he found that the actual strength of the Militia was 23,735, while the number to which they ought to have amounted was 32,523; therefore, if required for immediate service, a deficiency of one-third would be found. When last taken the number of the disembodied force present was actually 44,340, there being absent 30,507, or very nearly the same number absent as those present. The whole system at present adopted for keeping up the Militia was wrong, and required remodelling, for it was a force that could never be depended upon. He was himself enlisting men every day who it was well known would be never seen again after they had received the bounty. Commanding officers were compelled to enlist such men because they were told they must keep regiments up to a certain strength. If they did not obey these orders letters were written demanding an explanation of the cause; but at the same time that they were enlisting the men they knew that the money paid was thrown away, it being in many cases used to enable the recipients to pay their expenses to America. What was the use of keeping a regiment 1,000 strong in a time of peace? When a Line regiment marched out it was hardly ever more than 500 strong, and why might not Militia regiments be kept at that standard until they were called out for service, when as many men as were wanted might be procured? This plan would save the bounties now paid to men who never came near when they were wanted. Then, again, calling out the Militia for twenty-one days' training was a perfect farce. It was true that
  246
  at the end of twenty-one days they were able to march past and to go through a drawing room field-day with tolerable credit. But they were not converted into soldiers. There would be time, in the event of war, to make just as great an advance in drill and discipline before the services of the Militia were likely to be required. If, however, it was thought necessary to call them out, every regiment ought to have its fair turn. For the present state of our army the Secretary for War, as well as right hon. and gallant predecessor, deserved great credit. According to a Return just presented to Parliament, we had now under arms 226,304 men of all ranks, of whom there were in this country 94,454 regular troops and 19,333 Militia, who had been embodied for two years, and might be considered equal to any average regiment of the Line. Thus we had in England, including depots of Indian regiments, no fewer than 113,787 effective soldiers fit for immediate service. That was a most creditable army to keep up for home service; but what an army would it not be if we had in the Militia a properly organized reserve which might be immediately called out if necessary! He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity of devising some new scheme for placing the Militia on a proper footing, and meanwhile the junior officers ought to be recompensed for the delay and inconvenience to which they were exposed when called out.

THE CRIMEAN COLONELS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, that, before putting the question of which he had given notice, he wished to remind the House that, pursuant to the recommendation of a Royal Commission appointed in the year 1854, to inquire into the existing system of promotion, a Royal Warrant was issued, whereby it was directed that lieutenant-colonels, who had served three years in that capacity in command of regiments, should be promoted to the rank of colonel. On the 28th of November, 1854, all lieutenant-colonels who had then completed three years in command, or on certain staffs, were promoted to the rank of colonel, and subsequently as each lieutenant-colonel completed three years in those capacities, he became a colonel, passing over the heads of those lieutenant-colonels who had not thus qualifi-

  247
  ed. In June, July, and November, 1855, twenty-three officers serving as lieutenant-colonels in the Crimea were promoted to the rank of full colonel for distinguished conduct before the enemy, and so intersected the lieutenant-colonels promoted under the new rule. In consequence, however, of the retrospective action of the Royal warrant in question upon those officers who had obtained the rank of lieutenant-colonel before June, 1854, and who had thus, by a rule passed after they had obtained the rank, been superseded by their juniors—some of them by as many as 200—another Commission was appointed in 1858 by General Peel, which recommended, for the purpose of remedying this injustice, that the whole of the lieutenant-colonels, who held that rank before June, 1854, should be ante-dated on the 28th of November, 1854, and that they should all be replaced in the relative positions they held as lieutenant-colonels, before the new rule was issued. But in doing this they unfortunately overlooked the claims of gallant officers who had done good service in the Crimea, inasmuch as there were several who, not having the rank of lieutenant-colonel at that time, had junior officers placed over their heads. He would call attention to some of the gallant officers who were thus affected by the warrant of 1858. Their names were familiar to them all. Gordon's battery and Chapman's battery before Sebastopol were well known to every Englishman. These were two of the officers who were affected by the warrant of 1858. There was also his gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Colonel P. Herbert); the result being that those officers gained no advantage by the rewards which Her Majesty had been pleased to bestow on them. By the warrant of 1858, 136 officers of the army and ordnance were placed over the head of Colonel Gordon, and 122 officers were placed over the head of Colonel Chapman. That in effect amounted to a deprivation of five or six years' service in their approximation to the rank of general officer; and if the old system of brevet continued those officers would have been in a higher position than they occupy at present. In conclusion, he would beg-to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, if it is his intention to recommend Her Majesty to reinstate the officers who were promoted to the rank of colonel for distinguished service in the Crimea, in an approximate numerical po-
  248
  sition to that which they attained when they were first promoted to that rank, and of which they had been deprived by their claims being overlooked when a revision of the lists took place, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1858?

THE 67th REGIMENT.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, if there is any truth in the report that the Wives and Families of the Soldiers of the 67th Regiment, who wore sent out to India to join their Husbands, have been ordered, on their arrival in India, to be sent back to England. He (Colonel North) hoped that this report was not true; but if it was true, he felt assured that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) must have had some strong reasons for giving those orders.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Officer who had just spoken, he had to state it was true that when it was understood that the 67th was to be one of the regiments to go to China, orders had been given to send back the women and children as a matter of course. Afterwards it was found that the 67th was not to be one of the regiments for the Chinese expedition, but was to return to England, and then a telegram was sent out to India countermanding the previous order. He trusted that that telegram reached India in time to prevent the embarkation of the women and children, but the authorities there, knowing that the regiment in question was coming to England, would no doubt have exercised their own discretion in the matter, as they had the power to do, in not sending the women and children back.
  With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay) who had stated the case of the officers referred to very fairly, the recommendation of the Commissioners was of course a general one, based upon simple principles, and could not have been made with reference to special cases. The officers referred to by the hon. and gallant Officer were no doubt gallant and distinguished members of the service; but whatever the effect of the rule in their particular case (and upon that he need not state his own private opinion to the hon. and gallant Member, who knew all the circum-

  249
  stances), to place them in any numerical position equivalent to that they held before would have rendered it necessary to antedate two commissions, a step which would have occasioned considerable military inconvenience, and was contrary to the rules of the service. If any plan could be devised by which the parties could be placed in the same relative position which they would but for the rule have enjoyed, free from such inconvenience, he should be happy to consider it with a view to its adoption.
  Upon the subject of the militia organization, he differed from the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dickson) who had put a question to him. One thing had been done. Circulars were issued, and the Adjutant received regular pay in order to prevent, as far as possible, any men from entering the Militia whose residences were not known and whose characters were not approved. He did not deny the existence of the grievance to which the hon. and gallant Officer had called attention as regarded the militia officers serving in Ireland, and in some instances a good deal of hardship. The recommendation of the Militia Commission was that where the soldiers were billeted the officers should receive lodging money provided the colonel recommended it, and reported that the quarters allotted were inconvenient. The only reason why that recommendation had not been acted upon was the expense it would entail. The cost of the military establishments this year was so large that he had been compelled to make reductions in directions where, under other circumstances, he should not have done so.

INDIAN CADETS IN EGYPT.—REPLY.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he rose to reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Mildmay) at an earlier period of the evening. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether there was any truth in the statements that had been published respecting transactions which were alleged to have taken place at Cairo. He had received a Report from the Consul General of Egypt announcing an outrage of the grossest possible character. The right hon. Baronet read an extract from the Report of the Consul, stating that a party of from twenty-five to thirty persons, including two ladies, visited the Great Mosque, and, not content with being permitted to enter, sought to in-
250
trude upon the space set apart for the family of the Viceroy, and when there conducted themselves with great impropriety, ridiculing and mocking the genuflections of the worshippers. Nothing could exceed the kind and proper conduct of the Viceroy. He sent remonstrances, and when those were found to be unavailing a body of cavasses surrounded the offenders, not only to remove them from the Mosque, but also to protect them from the anger of a justly irritated crowd. The Consul, on receiving intelligence of the affair, called the next day upon the officers of the Mosque and offered them an apology, which they received very kindly. By that time the passengers had gone on by railway, and he had no certain information as to who were the parties. The Consul did not report that any of them were officers in the Indian service, but it might be inferred from some expression in the Report that such was the case. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had submitted the account to him (Sir C. Wood), and he sent out directions by the last mail that the senior officers who arrived by that steamer should be called upon to report the circumstances of the affair, and the names of those persons in the Indian service if any, who were engaged in it. Those directions had been sent to Madras and Calcutta, and would be sent to Bombay by the next mail. With respect to the future, he might say that the Consul in Egypt had been instructed, in case of a similar occurrence, to act upon the powers he possessed, and to arrest upon the spot every British subject that might be guilty of such conduct.
COLONEL SYKESasked whether the right hon. Baronet had previously received any unfavourable account of the conduct of Indian officers?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had intended to add that he should be very sorry to have it supposed that such conduct was habitual among Indian officers, and in respect to this case he hoped the House would suspend its judgment on the individuals until the details were known.

THE NEUTRALIZED PROVINCES OF SAVOY.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, pursuant to notice, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as stated lately in the public prints, M. Thouvenel has informed the representatives of those

251
powers who signed the Treaties of Vienna, that, as soon as the cession of Savoy shall have been sanctioned by the "universal suffrage of the inhabitants," and ratified by the vote of the Sardinian Parliament, France will take possession of those provinces, submitting only subsequently a limited part of the question to the consideration of the proposed Conference; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State intends to consent to the taking possession by France of the neutralized provinces of Savoy, until a Conference or Congress, or other joint diplomatic action, shall have previously determined on the whole question, of the manner in which due consideration for the independence of Switzerland, requires that the provinces placed in a state of peculiar and exceptionable neutralization by repeated Treaties, shall be ultimately disposed of. The subject of the annexation had arrived at a stage when he apprehended negotiation was almost illusory, and might was about to take the place of right. As far as could be learnt from the public sources of information, the French Emperor was about to take absolute possession of the neutralized provinces of Savoy; and, that done, he would then graciously condescend to submit for discussion to the proposed Conference some secondary matter, which would not at all affect the question of the disposal of those provinces. He disclaimed any intention to impute blame in the matter to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the Government; but he must say it appeared to him that the expectations in connection with it which the noble Lord had held out to the House had, up to this point, in every respect, been disappointed. Notwithstanding that all along the House had shown a disposition to place confidence in the noble Lord in dealing with the question, the hopes in which he had indulged from time to time as to a satisfactory settlement of it remained entirely unfulfilled. He by no means underrated the difficulties by which the question was surrounded, but as the efforts of the Government appeared to have very little force, he thought those efforts should be supported by an expression of opinion on the part of Members of the House generally. The despatches of the noble Lord asserted the true principle of the neutrality of Savoy, as settled by the Treaty of 1815 and the necessity of securing the independence of Switzerland as against France, by transferring to Switzerland the provinces
252
comprised in that neutralization; but it appeared that while he had been negotiating and writing despatches, the Emperor of the French had been acting, and had turned a deaf ear to all the noble Lord's remonstrances. If they considered the illusory and unfair manner in which the subject of the annexation had been put to the popular vote, it was not to be wondered at that in the larger towns of the country, where French cafés and gambling-houses abounded, such as Chambéri and Annecy, the valleys of which inclined towards the French territory, the inhabitants might be favourable to a union with France. He did not, however, believe that such was the feeling of the inhabitants generally. If the two valleys of the rivers Dranse and Arve running down to the Lake of Geneva were to be taken possession of by France, the aggression could not be too much reprobated. France was entering on a course that would lead it to the Lake of Geneva, and, if it once got there, that lake would be covered by French gunboats in less than three months, and Geneva would be cut off from the rest of Switzerland. If our alliance with France was worth anything, it should be an alliance that would give us influence with France on such questions as these; but, if it meant nothing more than submission to that Power, we were better without the alliance. There had been joint expeditions with France against China and other places; but if such expeditions are made use of by France only as a school for her navy, and as a means of learning our naval tactics, the fewer we have of them the better. He had been struck with an observation made in the Prussian Chambers, by the deputy for the city of Berlin, when speaking of the position of Prussia and the other European Powers with reference to the Savoy question. After referring to Russia as engaged at home, and Austria as meditating vengeance on Italy, perhaps on Germany, he said England had almost made up her mind to sell her birthright for a mess of pottage in the shape of a treaty of commerce. He (Mr. Griffith) was very far from objecting to the most complete realization of free trade between ourselves and France, but it should not be purchased at the price of our complete independence on matters of the general policy of Europe. If this question was to be redeemed from the sphere of excellently written despatches, and debates in that House, England must take a higher stand than she had hitherto done, other-

253
wise she would become a mockery to every country in Europe.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, it appeared to him that the question of the hon. Gentleman was far too important an one to be discussed in an incidental or desultory manner. But there was one other question which, perhaps, the noble Lord would be kind enough to give the House information upon. He should be glad to know whether the House was to understand that it was finally arranged that this question was to be referred to a Conference of the Great Powers; and, if that were so, whether it was arranged what Powers were to be parties to the Conference; and, further, whether the information received was correct, that Prance had made a proposition to the effect that the question to be referred to the Conference should relate only to what means should be adopted to secure the neutralization of particular provinces in Savoy for the future, and that question should be raised by the Conference that might lead to what the French Minister called the dismemberment of Savoy. He wished to know whether any other propositions were to be submitted to the Conference. He begged to remind the noble Lord that he had asked him a few evenings ago a question which he was then unable to answer. He hoped that the noble Lord would be kind enough to give him now an answer to that question also.

THE ENGLISH GRAVES AT SEBASTOPOL.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN ANNESLEYsaid, that before the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary rose to reply, he wished to bring a matter under his notice, for which he was sure he would receive the indulgence of the House. He meant the disgraceful condition of the' graves of those British soldiers who had fallen at Sebastopol. On this subject a letter from an Englishman had appeared in The Times of that day, which he would take the liberty to read to the House. The letter said:—
"Being on a short visit to this place, and feeling very desirous to see the last resting-places of our fallen countrymen, I called on Lieutenant-Colonel Gowen (American contractor with the Russian Government for raising the sunken ships in the harbour) for some information—he being the only person who knew their relative positions—who very kindly offered to accompany me. Our first visit was to Cathcart's Hill, where we found the beautiful largo black marble cover on the tomb of Sir Robert Lydstone Newman, Captain
254
of Grenadier Guards, had been removed by some sacrilegious hands, doubtless seeking for jewellery or other articles of value. We endeavoured to replace the cover in its proper position, but were unable to move it. Colonel Gowen proposed having it replaced in a few days. We also found the hinges on the gates partly hacked off, evidently for the paltry value of the copper. I also learned from Colonel Gowen that there had been previously a number of shot and shell placed over and around several of the graves by relatives and friends who had visited the spot; these, together with the large shot surmounting the corners of the wall enclosing the cemetery, and on each side of the gate, are now all gone. We next visited the Artillery graveyard, and discovered that they had also disturbed the tablet from the tomb of Captain W. K. Allix, Aide-de-Camp to General Sir De Lacy Evans. The walls around this cemetery were sadly broken down. We then proceeded to the graveyard of the Naval Brigade, where a ghastly sight presented itself. We found the slabs that covered the grave of Commander Lacon Usser Hammett, of Her Majesty's ship Albion, had been turned over and the remains of that lamented officer entirely exhumed, the bones as well as some remaining portions of the uniform being scattered around the grave, which evidently had been opened only a few days before. It was truly a heart-sickening spectacle to behold the last mortal remains of this brave officer he bleaching in the sun. Colonel Gowen assured me that on the following Sunday he would have the remains carefully restored to their former peaceful state. We then visited several other graveyards, and found them more or less in a very dilapidated state—the walls broken down in many places, and in some instances so much so that even the cattle have been found grazing within the enclosures. Notwithstanding, however, the mutilated and neglected state of many of the graves of those brave men who fell in the Crimea, still the sincerest thanks of every true Englishman are due to Colonel Gowen for the truly Christian and sympathizing interest he has so disinterestedly taken in having, entirely at his own expense and trouble, already repaired and restored many of the English graves and cemeteries, as well as several of the French and Sardinian, and preserved them from violation and decay. It is sincerely to be hoped that our Government will take such speedy and necessary measures for putting our graveyards in a proper state of repair as to preserve from oblivion the last resting places of so many brave men who fell during the Crimean campaign."
His object was to elicit the opinion of the Government on this subject, and to inquire whether there were any objections to make a diplomatic representation to the Russian Government. If there were, perhaps the Government would think it right to issue instructions to the nearest consular agent, who was, he believed, our Consul at Odessa, to make periodical visits to the cemeteries at Sebastopol, in order to protect the remains of our gallant countrymen from desecration.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Horsham

255
(Mr. S. FitzGerald) that this question of Savoy, and the neutralized parts of Savoy, is too important a matter to be discussed in the incidental manner in which it has been brought forward this evening. I shall therefore not refer to the statements I have made at various times to the House, only saying that they were founded at the time upon the declarations which were made by foreign Governments, or upon the despatches which I have received from Her Majesty's Ministers abroad. With regard to the immediate question, and which the hon. Gentleman opposite and the House regard with considerable interest, as to what is to be done now in regard to that part of the subject which remains open for consideration, namely, the neutralized parts of Savoy, I wish to give to the House such information as I can, but it is very far from being complete. It is proposed that there should be a Conference of the Powers of Europe who signed the treaty of Vienna on a particular subject, and that subject is, as it is stated by the French Government, to reconcile the 92nd Article of the treaty of Vienna, to which all the Powers of Europe who signed that treaty are parties, with the second Article of the treaty of Turin, which has lately been concluded between the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia. I do not believe that the French Government wish either to go any further in the way of stating what other questions are to be considered or to place any further restrictions on the questions to be discussed at that Conference. I do not certainly apprehend that the French Government mean to impose such a restriction as the hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. At the same time, from communications I have received, and from the declarations which the Emperor of the French has made from time to time, I conceive that to any measures that may be properly called the dismemberment of Savoy, we should find in the Conference that the French Government would be decidedly opposed; but it is obvious that there may be other measures which would not amount to dismemberment, but which would yet give a military frontier to Switzerland, which might be proposed by Switzerland. However, when Switzerland has made such proposal will be the time for Her Majesty's Government and the, other Powers to consider it. With respect to the parties to the Conference, they are, as I have stated, the eight Powers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna, and I believe
256
there is no doubt that all these Powers will agree that Switzerland should be likewise represented at that Conference. With regard to Sardinia, there is some discussion still going on, and likewise as to the question in what manner Switzerland and Savoy are to appear at the Conference. The Conference in London in 1831–2 is cited as affording a precedent. According to that precedent, the parties not comprehended among those who signed the treaty of Vienna may appear at the Conference, either always, or only on certain occasions. That is a matter which, as I have stated, is under discussion. The time of the meeting of the Conference has been likewise a matter of discussion, but the French Government state on that subject that they consider a Conference cannot be properly assembled until the treaty of Turin is complete. That treaty of Turin is not complete until the Assembly of Turin shall have given their assent to the treaty. The King of Sardinia has no doubt given his assent to the treaty, but it is a part of the constitution of Sardinia that no cession of territory shall be valid until the treaty giving it is confirmed by the Votes of the Parliament of Sardinia. The French Government say that, supposing the Vote of the Parliament of Piedmont should not be in favour of the cession, and should be against the ratification of the treaty, there would then be nothing for the Powers of Europe to deliberate upon, and therefore they cannot be called together until that vote has been come to. It is understood that the Parliament of Piedmont is to consider the question about the first week in May, or the first ten days in May, and it is proposed that the Conference should meet after that time. Then there comes the question to which the hon. Member for Horsham called my attention the other evening, and to which we attach, as he does, considerable importance—namely, what shall be the state of possession of the neutralized portions of Savoy after the treaty has been confirmed, supposing it to be confirmed at Turin, and before the Conference has met? We have stated more than once at Paris, and Earl Cowley has stated it even since his return to Paris, that, in our opinion, it is most desirable that no civil or military occupation by France should take place until the Conference has considered this question of the neutralized parts of Savoy, and under what restrictions those neutralized portions shall be hereafter held, and in what manner they shall be disposed of. The French

257
Government, however, I must say, on the other side, state that they see great difficulty in assenting to such a proposition, because it would seem to assume that the Treaty of Turin did not perfectly do what it purported to do—namely, transfer the whole sovereignty of Savoy from the King of Sardinia, its late or present Sovereign, to the Emperor of the French. They therefore raise this difficulty, without laying any stress, however, upon the practical objections to any other course. With regard to any practical result, they say that Her Majesty's Government may be assured that there will be no precipitation in taking possession of that territory, but that there must be some authority, and that the territory cannot be left without some authority during the Conference. That discussion between the two Governments is not yet concluded. It still appears to me, I must confess, that it would be more satisfactory that some arrangement should be come to by which the whole of that territory should not be in the possession of the French authorities during the time of the Conference, because, as from the complication of documents there arises every day questions of wounded pride or injured honour, it is desirable that the French authorities should not be required to withdraw from any portion of the territory of which they are in actual possession. This is a matter like other matters which depends very much on the opinion of the different Powers in Europe. I believe that the Government of Prussia takes the same view as we do on this subject. With regard to the other Powers, we have had communications on this particular point, and I can only say that it is not at present decided. I will not go further into this subject at present. I have only wished to give such information as I am able, and I do not think the question is one for discussion at the present moment.
With regard to the cemeteries of Sebastopol, I am sorry to say that I am afraid the statement of the hon. Gentleman is in conformity with the truth, since it agrees in every respect with the statements we have received. We have given such directions as we think may prevent any further continuance of such shocking outrages upon the feelings of this country and the relatives of the great and gallant men who are buried there; and I have desired Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg to remonstrate in very strong terms with the Russian Government on the subject.

DEPORTATION OF IRISH PAUPERS.

  OBSEBVATIONS.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he rose to call the attention of the President of the Poor Law Board to the circumstances attending the deportation of an aged Female Pauper from Liverpool to Dublin on the night of the third April, 1860. The poor woman to whom he referred had been 52 years in England, and had for 29 years been the wife of an Englishman, yet the moment circumstances obliged her to seek workhouse relief she was shipped by the union authorities at Liverpool for Dublin on a very inclement night. He did not blame any one, for the Liverpool authorities had only acted in conformity with the law, but the cause of humanity required that the right hon. Gentleman should turn his attention to the present very unsatisfactory state of the law of settlement. He was aware that the rules of the House would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from replying to him on the present occasion, but he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose sight of so momentous a question.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that as one of the representatives of the city of Dublin, he could bear testimony to the accuracy of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. The case was not an exceptional one; for poor people who had spent their lives in honest industry in England were landed in shoals at the port of Dublin, and the burden of giving them relief fell upon the union in which the quay on which they were landed was situated. It was, he thought, not a matter with which a private Member ought to deal, and he trusted the Government would before long turn then-attention to an improvement of the law on the subject.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, there could be no doubt of the hardship of the case, both as to the poor persons who were subject to removal, and also to the unions, on whom the burden of receiving them was chiefly placed. As to the particular case referred to, however, the hon. Member for Liverpool had requested him to say that he had received a statement to the effect that between the 1st and 8th of April no person was sent from that port answering to the description of an aged woman. He had himself been constantly in communication on this subject with the Poor Law

  259
  authorities and others, and no one, he was certain, was more sensible of the hardship of the existing law than those who directed the machinery of the Poor Law in Ireland. His right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board had already communicated to the House his intention of moving for the renewal of the Committee to consider two important questions connected with this subject—first, the propriety of reducing from five to three years the period of residence necessary to acquire the privilege of irremovability; and second, the propriety of extending the area of residence for the same purpose from the parish to the union. His right hon. Friend would soon move for that Committee, and hoped on the termination of the inquiry, which would be of short duration, to be prepared with a measure on the subject. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the removal of a grievance of this kind was the proper function of the Government. Former Governments had not been unmindful of that duty, but had been unsuccessful in their efforts to remedy the evil. He hoped, however, that his right hon. Friend would be more fortunate.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
  THIRD READING.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

    SECOND NIGHT.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th April], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WHITESIDE: The hon. Baronet is entitled to a fair consideration of his measure this evening, and I do not wish that we should take leave of it for the Session without a parting word. I say for the Session, because, although the hon. Baronet has pursued this Question with industry and zeal, it has been with varied success. As far as I can understand the speeches of the hon. Baronet on this subject, which I have had the good fortune to hear him deliver in this House for some years past, he entertains the belief that there is some great practical grievance connected with church rates pressing on a large class of Her Majesty's subjects of which it his duty to obtain the redress. While we have a Reform Bill, a Budget, a
    260
    Commercial Treaty before us, the hon. Baronet concentrates his energies upon a measure that is to strip his countrymen, in a Christian nation, of the power of imposing on themselves, if they should think fit, an assessment for the support of the fabric of the Church, devoted to the religion of the State. I have sometimes been disposed to ask the hon. Baronet at what period of our history did this injustice first arise? By what Sovereign, in a reign of ignorance and darkness, was the law enacted? By what Parliament was it passed? I find that the establishment of this right was not the act of King, Parliament, or even Bishop, but that it owes its existence to and springs from the common law of England. And what is the common law of England—for no country but England possesses such a blessing? If you asked any other European nation what was the law, they show you their code in a little red book that might be bought for half-a-crown, but might be dear at 6d., as the laws it contained rest on the will of a despot who may abolish them by a word. But the common law of England has existed from time immemorial. It is the result of the wishes, the interests, the hopes, desires, and deepest convictions of the people. Such I understand and believe to be the origin of this rate. What is it? Not, as it has been described by the hon. Baronet, a tax that exists, and which he seeks to take away; but a power that certain persons, being the majority of a parish, possess, in conformity with the principle on which the whole constitution rests, to affirm a church rate that can be assessed on those who are summoned to attend and do not choose to do so. A petition in favour of the abolition of the rate has been presented by an active body, called a Society for Liberating the Church from State Control. This Society has been well advised outside the walls of this House. It has presented an elaborate statement by way of petition in which the church rate is represented as an ecclesiastical extortion, which could never be recovered before the common law courts, or by any common law process known in this country. That is very ingeniously put forward, and for a certain purpose. The society thinks it can appeal to those who are called—sometimes very erroneously—the friends of religious liberty. Here is a tax, imposed only by ecclesiastical power, that to certain classes is a grievance, and ought to be removed. Those views are

    261
    put forward also in The Liberator, a paper devoted to the Liberal purpose of abolishing the Church of England. The other House of Parliament has instituted a very interesting inquiry into the subject of church rates, and one of the questions investigated by that Committee is the very one on which, in a great measure, the advocate of this Bill rests his case. Two witnesses were called before that Committee, to whose evidence I would ask the hon. Baronet's attention, because I believe him to be a candid man, and, though he has brought forward this Bill repeatedly, he says he is a Friend of the Church. I can hardly believe, after he has examined the question with the care and caution that become every man who seeks to overset a law and custom that have existed for ages, he will not be convinced, withdraw his Bill, and leave the Church of England where he found it. The two witnesses examined were Mr. Toulmin Smith and Dr. Lushington. The last is one of the most eminent persons in the country, and was long an ornament to the Liberal party in this House. When I read the evidence of Mr. Toulmin Smith I concluded he had been put forward as a strong orthodox Episcopalian witness; but to my great surprise, I found that this learned and candid person is a Dissenter. I beg to acknowledge my obligation to him; I have been instructed by his learning, and he has convinced me that moderation, justice, and fairness may exist in the Dissenting body. I believe he is a religious, not a political Dissenter. But though a Dissenter, he has devoted his time and attention to ascertaining in what source this power of imposing a church rate took its rise. He differs in some respects from Dr. Lushington, but, substantially, scarcely at all. The main difference is that Dr. Lushington traces the rate up to Saxon times; Mr. Toulmin Smith thinks it less by ten years than 500 years old. He states that in 1350, 1376, and 1379, it was shown by the statutes and rolls of Parliament that complaints were made of endowments devoted to the church fabrics being diverted from their purpose, and as a consequence the churches were in ruin. In the old year books he found that in 1370 "a suit was brought against one A. touching goods taken by way of distress for a rate." A. avowed the taking, for there had been a meeting of the parishioners of the church of E. to repair defects in their church, and because there was a de-
    262
    fect in the roof they made a tax upon themselves of the sum of £10 to repair the defects. What did this prove to any candid man? That nearly 500 years ago, it was an ancient custom for the parishioners to be summoned together, and for those parishioners, when assembled, to impose a rate, which rate was levied from even a reluctant parishioner, who was bound to pay it. Mr. Toulmin Smith observes that this case was a very important one with reference to one objection—namely, that based on the supposition that church rates could be levied only through the Ecclesiastical Courts. This opinion he pronounces to be "a complete mistake." It is, perhaps, true that in modern times there have been some encroachments, and that the Ecclesiastical Courts have got possession of the means of enforcing the rate; but that does not disestablish that for which I contend—namely, that church rates took their root in the common law of England, and were capable of being enforced by the principles of common law. The learned Gentleman proceeds to say that the parish had a right to bind the parishioners for other purposes connected with the parish just as effectually as if a rate were made for the purpose. The answers of Dr. Lushington are full of kindness, courtesy, and good feeling towards the Church of England. He will not resign his privileges as a member of that Church; he does not wish to be exempted from the payment of the rate; he has satisfied himself of its legality and justice; he has proved its antiquity, as springing from the old common law of the country; and I cannot conceive a piece of testimony more interesting, or that commends itself more to the impartial consideration of the Legislature. Some person has said that, except by vote, the parishioners could not apply the church rate to any other purpose than the repair and maintenance of the church fabric and the preservation of the churchyard. But that question has been investigated by Mr. Toulmin Smith, who says that, if the parishioners have notice of the purpose to which the rate is to be applied, and, knowing it, approve its application in that manner, the proceeding is as good and valid as if a rate were specifically raised for repairing the roof of a church. Dr. Lushington, in his evidence, says he has no doubt whatever this privilege arose in Saxon times. I stop at that word "Saxon," because I think it has a great bearing on the

    263
    argument. Those who laid the foundation of our liberties, of the constitution under which we live, and of our common law, had no notion of the existence of a State without having in every district a church that might be suitable, in which the nation acknowledged the God that conferred such blessings on it. They had no idea how a nation was to be governed and to prosper if the men who enjoyed the fruits of the earth were not to have a building in which to give their Creator thanks for the blessings he showered on them. But, if they were to have a national worship, it was also necessary that they should have a fabric in which to render it, and therefore it followed that they got power to make assessments which were to be applied to the sustentation of that fabric. Dr. Lushington says the Saxons decided in ancient times by the vote of the majority, and all that the minorities could do was to submit and to turn themselves as speedily as they could into majorities, which is sometimes a difficult matter. I do not see any difference between a member of the minority in old times refusing to pay the rate, and a Quaker who refuses to pay taxes in time of war. In fact, it would be much more reasonable for a man conscientiously opposed to war to refuse to contribute than it would have been for any well-regulated mind to refuse to pay his penny in the pound in support of the old parish church. Dr. Lushington explains the case referred to so much of late, and shows the error of the decision had its origin in the neglect of the law of the majority, for the churchwardens having only the minority to support them failed in their attempt. Consequently the decision of the House of Lords affirming that the majority only can bind the minority has only brought the matter back to the rule laid down by the old common law. The hon. Baronet says the church rates have ceased to be collected in many parishes; that is a matter to be regretted; but he follows that up in the preamble by saying that they should not be collected in any place. I confess I do not perceive the sequence of the conclusion to the premises in that argument. Because it is not paid in some parishes it does not follow that it should be refused in all. It may be said that the progress of enlightenment, of reason, and of liberality has a tendency to change all those old ideas. Listen to the opinion of one who has written many things with which I do not agree—and I only quote a
    264
    writer where his sentiments agree with my own—but whose name will possibly carry weight with some. Mr. Cobbett, writing of the prosperity of England, and of one of its most flourishing counties, says,—
    "Suffolk is the crack county of England; it is I think the best, the most carefully, and the most skilfully cultivated piece of land of the same size in the whole world. Labourers are most active in the culture of the land; the farmers' wives and women employed in agriculture are as frugal, adroit, and cleanly as any in the world. They are a most frank, industrious, and virtuous people"—[we really ought all to settle in Suffolk]—"and their houses are models of cleanliness, neatness, and good order."
    Then Mr. Cobbett puts the practical question—what is the reason of all this? The reason is this:—
    "There is a parish church in every three square miles or less, and the district is divided into such numerous parishes that the persons residing in it may be said to be constantly under the eye of the resident parochial minister."
    I want to know whether, in proceeding against church rates the right hon. Baronet intends to subvert the parochial system. We must understand the steps of this social revolution, which comes in a new light before us since the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords. Does he intend that, the parochial system being upset, we shall have the country divided into districts in which roving clergymen shall get together congregations wherever they may find persons willing to attend to them? I confess that I have been puzzled to understand the meaning of this Bill. When were church rates first complained of? By the old Dissenters, who differed, I deeply lament, from the Church on religious grounds? Never! I could quote authority after authority among eminent Dissenters, all showing that the Dissenters as a body were in favour of maintaining the Church, from which, on certain grounds of conscience, they did dissent; but they were too candid, too learned, and too just, to invent a pretended scruple of conscience in order to carry out a deep political design. Their Lordships seem not to have understood the character of some of the men whom they were dealing with, and to whom they gave credit for liberal and enlightened views. These witnesses said, "We desire to think as we like." Good; but they added to that, "We desire to make every other man think as we like also." They were asked, "Supposing we abolish church rates altogether from Dissenting congregations, will you be satisfied?" "Certainly not" was the reply,

    265
    "because, though you prevent Churchmen from imposing payment on Dissenters, you would still give to Churchmen the power of making rates on Churchmen, which we cannot submit to." But when did these objections commence? Certainly not with John Wesley. I am not going to trouble the House with statistics. I think for the last twenty years we have suffered under a load of statistics. The Wesleyans constitute half the orthodox Dissenters in England, but no man will now be justified in saying that the Wesleyans as a body have taken up this movement against the Church. Such an allegation has been put an end to by the testimony of Mr. Bunting—a name that ought never to be mentioned without respect—and the Rev. Mr. Osborne. Mr. Bunting was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, and the evidence which he gave is of the most valuable character. He confirmed entirely the evidence of Mr. Osborne, an eminent member of the Wesleyans, as to the favourable light in which that body regards church rates and the Established Church, and the very small number of persons belonging to the body who had ever objected to the rate or refused to pay it. As to anything like concentrated action against the rate, he states in his evidence that if it were attempted seriously it would meet with resolute opposition, and probably imperil the unity of the body. During the agitation which took place in 1857 against the rate, Mr. Bunting states that a minister of the connection, of considerable influence in the body, wrote a letter against church rates and circulated it, but his conduct was noticed at the ensuing Conference, and a vote of censure passed on all such proceedings. In Mr. Bunting's opinion, judging from the tone of the discussions in Parliament and of the public press, there is considerable misapprehension existing as to the number of Nonconformists who entertain any conscientious objections to pay the rates. The opposition, he told the Committee, proceeds principally from three bodies—the Baptists, the Independents, and the various sects of Methodists who have seceded from the original body; but they are a minority of the whole Nonconformist body, and even among them the number of opponents to the rate is comparatively small. This shows that Parliament has mistaken noise and bluster for something substantial and real. It turns out, according to the testimony of these good and excellent men, that a large ma-
    266
    jority do not object to church rates. The reason why the Wesleyans look with favour on the rate, according to Mr. Bunting, is, that they would be sorry to see any injury done to a great religious agency. To use his own words—
    "There is a general feeling that the Church of England is a power of essential importance to the religion of the country, and increasingly so, and we should be sorry to destroy anything in which there was a blessing."
    The whole tenour of this gentleman's evidence proves that the influential community to which he belongs would be unwilling to strike a blow at the Church of England. He acknowledges most frankly that the Church of England is the only Church which makes any permanent religious provision for the poor. The tests of Christianity were, I may remind the House, that the blind saw, the deaf heard, the leper was cleansed, and even the dead raised; but the climax of the whole was, "that the poor had the Gospel preached to them" Again, when questioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whether the Dissenting body generally sufficiently provided for the maintenance of religion in the rural districts, and the less populous parts of the country, Mr. Bunting replied—
    "Certainly not. I think all experience is against that. I am glad to say that the Wesleyan Methodists do all in their power; but it is impossible for us to provide for populations as the Church of England can do. I should extend that observation also to large towns. I think that portions of large towns will never be provided for except by the parochial system. Dissenters never have done this; and I think there are insuperable difficulties in the way of their doing it."
    Then he was asked when the last church rate contest took place in Manchester. He replied:—
    "About two years ago. It was a serious contest, and the powers of both sides were put to the test. The Methodists, generally, supported the rate; and the result was a majority for the church rate. I am inclined," he added, "to think that church rates have failed from neglect rather than anything else. If Manchester were now polled," [and this raises Manchester vastly in my estimation] "I think, the Church having exerted itself there so much of late, that the result would be in favour of church rates."
    And why was this? Because an active minister of religion, sincere, zealous, not indulging in vagaries, but adhering to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed Church, is always respected. And it is on such grounds that this gentleman is of opinion that if a church rate were now proposed in Manchester it would be carried. Having, then, proved the antiquity of church rates, and the feeling of the Pro-

    267
    testant Nonconformists, such as John Wesley, one of the best men that over lived, I proceed to inquire, where did the opposition to church rates begin? The opposition originally began at Birmingham, in a political union, very much about the same time as the Reform agitation was urged by these unions. That political confederacy was very formidable. About the same time that church rates were to be abolished the constitution of the country was also to be abolished. It happened to me to be engaged in a trial for high treason, and one of the most distinguished soldiers that England ever produced—the late Sir W. Napier—appeared as a witness. He had declared that if any man were prosecuted for high treason he would state that it was proposed to him at the time these political unions existed that he should march on London with 100,000 men to intimidate and overawe the House of Lords. The Judges thought the evidence not relevant, and Sir William Napier was not heard; but that did not alter the fact he was prepared to prove. My argument is, that the movement against church rates was not on religious, but on political grounds. The first movement was not against the existence of the rate, but against the amount of the rate. Other unions were formed, opposition was fomented, and so it went on until the agitation was changed into an Anti-Church and State Society, for the avowed purpose of destroying the Church and breaking down the connection between Church and State. The name was an awkward name, and it was therefore altered to a Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Control, under which it now flourishes. It has its newspapers, its pamphlets, its collectors, its Parliamentary committee, active agents outside and innocent instruments within the walls of this House. Complaints have been made against the manufacture of petitions, and when a debate was about to take place, the society issued a document of this kind:—
    "'Up, friends, and at 'em!' is the word. The moment for action has arrived. Pass the summons round through every district to the remotest corner of the kingdom! Be quick—let no grass grow under your heels! Lose not a day—if possible to avoid it, do not postpone your preparations for an hour. In towns assemble forthwith for concerted movement. In villages draw up your petitions without a moment's delay. From every separate congregation let two petitions be sent up within the next fortnight—one to the Commons and one to the Lords. Both will be required. Two petitions—short, sharp, and decisive—praying for instant,
    268
    uncompensated abolition. Get every signature to them that can be got by industry and zeal—real, bonâ fide, legitimate signatures. Don't be content with merely letting the petitions lie in the vestry on Sunday—sweep the congregations for signatures—male and female."
    The petitions are of one stereotyped form, prepared by the same hand, and in favour of unconditional repeal. From some places too, there are more petitions than there appear to be inhabitants. I hold in my hand a set of instructions in the form of a circular marked immediate and important, in which it is directed that petitions should be sent to Conservative Members of Parliament, with a view to influence their personal feelings. It is a mistake to suppose that these people petition of their own accord, or that the petitions express their feelings in the exercise of a great and noble privilege. It is another man who thinks for them, and concocts the petition for them. Among the instructions one is that the person who gets up the petition may ask adults of both sexes, and others besides ratepayers, for their signatures. Two letters from clergymen have been handed to me by my noble Friend behind me, who is unable to speak in this debate, which show how these petitions are manufactured. In one case the names of all the members of a congregation were entered without their being asked by the person who had the care of the petition. In another the congregation were requested to remain after a prayer meeting to sign the petition. The names of men, women, and infants were entered indiscriminately. One woman had a child at her breast. She was asked his name. She said, "John." "Then," said the agent, "let John's name be put down." An old man offered to sign, but was told his signature was already affixed. In another instance the petition was signed in a great proportion by children of both sexes under ten years of age. One of these gentlemen who wrote to my noble Friend found a man very busy under a railway arch getting signatures to a paper, and he found it was likewise a petition against church rates. There is now a petition before the House from the parish of St. Simon and St. Jude, Manchester, complaining of the abuse of the right of petition. The petitioners state that they have seen a petition signed by boys of tender age in the public streets, and they feel it their duty to bring it under the notice of the House. The Committee who investigate petitions have also drawn attention to the fact of the great number of those petitions which are

    269
    manifestly the concoction of the same hand. In this way it is possible to get up almost any number of petitions. Since the Church has been provoked by this agitation a committee of laymen has been formed, and now we have petitions in favour of power being reserved to impose church rates equal in number to those against the existence of that power. The number of signatures to the latter is greater, but it arises from rectors and churchwardens supposing they could sign for those who authorized them, and in another year that error will be corrected and we shall see a different result. The committee of laymen have handed me the following statement, with permission to lay it before the House, as the question of church rates is not a clergyman's question. It is a question for all members of the Church; and I hope the laymen of that Church will be as enthusiastic in preserving the institutions of the country as some are in their desire to destroy them.
    "The committee of laymen, immediately on its formation, in the spring of 1850, applied themselves to an analysis of the existing Parliamentary Returns, with a view of ascertaining in how many of the parishes of England the rates had been actually refused. Up to this time an opinion had prevailed that a very largo proportion of the parishes were in this condition. The Returns analysed were those of Lord Robert Cecil and Sir William Clay, made to the House in 1856. Parishes not included in the former being searched for in the latter. By this means as many as 9,672 parishes were reached with the following results: Parishes in which the rate has been granted, 8,280; parishes in which there is no provision by church estates and otherwise, 544; parishes which have given dubious replies, 440; parishes which have refused church rates, 408."
    With that state of facts it baffles my comprehension how any Gentleman can argue that the people of this country are in favour of the abolition of church rates. I can understand how in some large towns, where there are active agitators and complete organization for political purposes, the rate may be refused; but here is decisive proof that the majority of the thousands of parishes in the country are in favour of church rates. The tactics of the opponents of church rates, as Mr. Osborne stated before the Committee, are to reduce the rate when they cannot overthrow it. They say that in places where there may be only a few dissentients they make it their business to worry the clergyman of the parish, to disturb the vestry, and to perplex the parishioners, and they give as their reason that it often happens that a small and active minority, by steady and
    270
    persevering efforts, overrides the opinion of a majority, which is perfectly true of more places than a parish. In 1859 a Return was obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who was then at the Home Office and endeavouring to settle the question, he having the true interests of religion at heart. Replies were received from 10,749 parishes, showing that in the disturbed state of the law some increase had been made in the parishes dependent on voluntary rates. These amounted to 835, no doubt including parishes formerly returned dubious. The parishes returned as supported by endowments alone amounted to the number of 451; and parishes in which wore endowments, voluntary rates, and subscriptions, were returned at 320, amounting in all to 771. Prom 504 particulars were not clearly stated, but it was reported that church rates in 1859 existed in 80 per cent of the entire parishes. It does not follow that there was a material increase of rates refused, though churchwardens had accepted voluntary rates pending a more distinct confirmation of the law. It may be remarked, too, that voluntary contributions for church restoration, repair, and otherwise, may safely co-exist with rates. The parishes of England and Wales are estimated at 12,000. In 1856 rates had only been refused in 408 parishes, which is less than 5 per cent. Mr. Walpole's Return of 1859 shows that there were 835 parishes dependent on voluntary rates and subscriptions alone. This would include parishes where the rates had been refused; but, still, making allowances for that increased number, the fact remains that upwards of 9,000 parishes approve the rate, and that only a small minority disapprove it. Upon what principle, therefore, is it that hon. Gentlemen contend that they have a right to ask this House to abolish the rate? They represent, I admit, very active and intelligent communities; but what is the actual strength of those communities? It is of the greatest possible use to ascertain this, because the grossest delusion ever entertained is that of supposing that a majority of the people belong to those particular bodies of Nonconformists who are against the rate. I have already disposed of the Wesleyan Methodists, and there is a Return which shows that all the denominations of Dissenters who are the objecting parties to the rate, do not, taken together, represent more than 15 per cent of the sittings provided

    271
    for Christian worshippers in this country. According to the analysis of the Census Return of 1851 by Mr. Mann, the total provision for the population by sittings amounted to 57 per cent. The provision by the Church of England is given as 29·7 per cent, the Wesleyans as 12·2 per cent. This portion of provision may be considered as favourable to the rate, and the principle of the Church of England. The Baptists furnish sittings in the proportion of 4·2 per cent; the Independents, 6 per cent; Scottish Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and all other sects, including Calvinistic Methodists, 4·9 (say 10) per cent—equal to 15 per cent. This sum of 15 per cent may be taken as a near approximation to the total of the entire bodies—men, women, and children; and of the heads of families, ascertained in the usual manner by dividing by 5, the total would he 3 per cent. This is the entire religious section taken up by the Liberation Society, and on whose behalf Great Britain had been agitated with a call for church rate abolition. But is it true that what is wanted is merely to get rid of the church rate? That, in truth, is but a small part of the question before us. Some years ago, when the noble Lord the Member for the City of. London was more mindful of the course that, as a Minister, he ought to pursue, and of the principles that formerly were supposed to actuate his conduct, he was asked to vote for a Bill for the abolition of church rates, and he refused to do so, saying he could not understand a general surrendering the outworks if they were to be surrendered only to be made the prelude to an attack on the citadel. The real objects of our opponents have been more fully developed since the noble Lord used that expression. It is a fact that the members of the Church Liberation Society are the concoctors of the petitions in favour of the present Bill, the active agents by whom, the anti-Church agitation is conducted, and what is it they aim at? They say, "Let no one mistake the church rate question for the Church question. The Church question is not yet mooted; but we give notice to Churchmen that as far as we are concerned we shall not the less earnestly seek for the separation of the Church from the State because we have got rid of church rates. We want the Church of England to be reduced to what she is, one of the sects, because we believe it will diffuse a greater amount of truth and righteousness." I do not want
    272
    you to believe the latter part of that passage. The first part I do believe. They go on to say, "Radical politicians dislike spending their strength on ecclesiastical questions. They will have to conquer that dislike, for ecclesiastical questions will furnish the chief subjects for popular conflict for years to come. But for the strange and anomalous position occupied by the State Church, its hatred of all change, its tenacious adherence to all abuses, its monopoly of honours, its indifference to justice, its encroachments and exactions, we question whether the middle classes could be got to take an interest in politics. Upon no other subject can excitement be so easily awakened!" They conclude by stating that the Liberation Society pledges itself always to labour for the separation of the Church from the State. I have other evidence to the same effect. Dr. Foster, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Liberation Society, was called as a witness before the Select Committee of the other House on this subject. Upon being asked what the objects of that Society were, he replied that they wished to separate the Church from the State, to take away all the funds and property with which the State had endowed any religious denomination whatever, and to free all denominations of persons who might happen to be under special legislation on religious grounds from such special legislation. He explained that they wished to take away, for instance, that property which belonged to the Church at the time when this country was Roman Catholic, and which by virtue of the Reformation was vested in the Church since it became Protestant. That is a fair slice. He also stated that he included tithes. Well, if you abolish church rates, seize the tithes, and confiscate the landed property, what remains? The edifices; and accordingly Dr. Foster was asked what he and his friends intended to do with the edifices, whereupon he replied that the edifices of the Church are likewise to be considered national property, and may be diverted from their present uses to some business of public utility. That is the nature of the evidence, which shows the design of the Liberation Society, and I dare say the members of that body represent the political opinions of that great Puritanical party which formerly overthrew, not merely the Church, but the Crown, and which so abused the power they acquired that they were more cordially hated and detested than any

    273
    other class of men who ever governed in England. But it has been said that the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock is no party to the machinations of this revolutionary confederacy. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne), in a recent speech, sought to rescue the hon. Baronet from the imputation of having any connection with the Liberation Society. He stated that he had himself voted for the abolition of church rates, not, however, from any hostility to the Church, because he was himself a Churchman. He stated that the last division exhibited the largest minority that had ever voted against the question for some time. I hope that that will not continue to be the case, but that there will be a still larger one. He tells us that the hon. Baronet had lost ground; but the reason was evident, because, before the Committee of the Lords last year, some evidence was given by highly respectable and conscientious men connected with the Church Liberation Society, of their intentions, and they went further than the abolition of church rates, stating that they wanted to do away with all tithes, and desired the separation of Church and State. He then declared that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Tavistock, was altogether disconnected with that party; but since that speech was spoken, the recognized organ of that party has published the speech with a commentary, remarking that the hon. Member for Tavistock has been aware of the objects of the Liberation Society for years, and long before he consented, at the instance of the Society, to take up the church-rate abolition question in Parliament, and that party abide by their opinions. The hon. Baronet, therefore, is in this position—that he has, innocently, no doubt, brought forward a measure to strike down church rates, it being avowed by the political body, whose agent he innocently is, that their object is to proceed steadily and energetically until they can lay their hands on all tithes, appropriate the land belonging to the Church, and finally the edifices of the Church. As the matter now stands, the House has now to determine a very different question from that which was originally brought forward. It was then represented as a teasing question of a penny in the pound levied in parishes where the majority was in opposition to the church rate; and that it would be a service to the best interests of the Church to get rid of that grievance. But when the matter is probed a little
    274
    more deeply, and when the instigators of the movement are brought up as witnesses, then the whole truth is disclosed; and now you understand what their object is. They say they throw down the gauntlet. Then we had bettor take it up, and fight the battle out bravely. However the Ministers may shuffle off their responsibility, I believe that the great body of the Protestant people of the country are attached to the Church. In answer to the idle and hypocritical pretence that the abolition of the church rate would be of service to the Church, I will refer to certain parishes mentioned in the blue-book. I will take two large Metropolitan parishes densely inhabited by the poor, while the rich men, who draw their wealth from them, go elsewhere to inhabit better houses and to breathe purer air, leaving the parochial minister to struggle with the difficulties of his position as he best may. I will take first the parish of Whitechapel, containing a population of 30,000, chiefly of the poorer classes. What does the minister of that parish say? He gets the church rate. This is exactly one of the cases which the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was intended to meet. The church rate there is collected along with the poor rate, by Act of Parliament; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was intended to take it away, though it is at present collected without difficulty and without objection. That church rate amounts only to £350 a year, and it is applied to the best purposes to which it was possible to conceive that a tax could be applied. If it were not collected the expenses of the churches must be defrayed by local contributions. But as the church rate covers that expense, the local contributions are applied to the keeping open of six or seven other churches, for which, by the zeal and vigilance of the minister, contributions are received from those manufacturers who have left the district; and they are thus maintained for the poor residents, for whom the church exists as their consolation, their blessing, their birthright; though now it is proposed to deprive them of its advantages; advantages which the church dispenses not in religion only, but in education, and all the blessings of good order in society. Take next the parish of Rotherhithe. The churchwarden of that parish is a nonconformist Wesleyan Methodist. He stated before the Committee that his parish contained a population of 20,000 chiefly poor, and

    275
    that the rate was levied with very slight objections. How was it applied? he was asked. "For the benefit of the Church." "But you are a Dissenter?" "Yes, but I am in favour of the Church and of the rate." "Can you collect it?" "Yes, with very slight difficulty; for the religious Dissenters, when they are fairly dealt with, and the case is fairly stated to them, withdraw their opposition and consent to the rate." And never was money more wisely laid out, or applied more to the benefit of the people. Though there are a number of persons in the parish who are not members of the Church, yet the rate has been levied without disapprobation up to the present hour, and it is applied to the purposes of education and religion. But, it is said, if the rate were abandoned, can you not fall back on local contributions? All the witnesses answer no. They say it is a very different thing with some persons to pay a legal demand, and to comply with a call for a voluntary contribution, and they all state that if you take the money away you take from the usefulness of the Church. There are many parishes in which the poor exclusively live; there the money is paid, not by them, but for them, and if you deprive them of it you deprive them of that which administers to their comfort and consolation, and you would do for the Church what its bitterest enemies desire. It is said that the opponents of the present Bill ought to propose some plan. I have no plan to propose, and I think with Dr. Lushington that the existing law is both an old and a good law. When the advocates of abolition say that they will not be satisfied, although Dissenters should not be called on to contribute, and that they will refuse to allow Churchmen to have a law whereby Churchmen may be enabled to assess each other, then I must, however reluctantly, say that there is no middle course, and that I am compelled to vote for the Bill or against it. But a greater question remains. I have read the papers of this society very attentively, and I am bound to say that I do not believe in their opinions, or that the history and experience of the world bears out their assertion that the State ought to have no connection with the Church. What State ever existed in power, greatness, and glory, that did not as a nation acknowledge an overruling Providence? Look to the people of antiquity. Not a ceremony, procession, or triumph, took place in ancient Rome that
    276
    was not consecrated by religion; and we now look with delight at the remains of the temples which they built to their gods; nay, more—so far is history from proving that separation of religion from the State to be the advancement of liberty and of morals that we find a great but indignant patriot, when he would recal the glories of ancient Rome, saying, "While your forefathers were wise, free, and virtuous, they lived in modest habitations, and spent their wealth in decorating the temples of the gods. You now, being corrupt and contemptible, live in luxury and riot, and you refuse to sustain the edifices of religion." The same rule holds good in modern history. Prance, in the hour of her revolution, ceased to recognize a national religion, and set up a goddess of Reason. What became of her? I will answer the question in the clear and forcible words of one of our ablest divines:—"When the rulers of a nation desert the national recognition of Christianity, the God of the Christians will desert them." That conveys his reason for maintaining the national Church, and it is a sound and a sufficient reason. The forms of our indictments and the proceedings of our public bodies prove that the principle of Christianity pervades our laws and our institutions; the Established Church is intertwined and inseparably connected with our political system, and to separate them is not to reform or amend, but to revolutionize the State while you destroy the Church. When revolutions have occurred in other countries we have been quiet, because the people of this country are a believing, and in the main a religious people, because they are taught daily and weekly all the duties of life by ministers of religion who are supported by the State, not merely because they teach the moral duties and preach the Scriptures, but because they promote order, peace, and security throughout the country. I oppose this Bill, not only on the ground that it is a bad Bill, but because there is at stake a much greater question, as avowed by the witnesses examined elsewhere—namely, whether or not the Established Church shall continue to exist in this country. The Nonconformists have asserted that the Church is careless upon this question. The Church has now copied from them, and will now call on the people to express their opinions. When mischievous men combine good men may unite, and I have little doubt that in the struggle which awaits us the Church of England will

    277
    come out of it stronger than she has ever been before, stronger in the opinion of the people, stronger in the affections of the nation, and stronger in the support of a Christian Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
    MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I feel somewhat indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having come forward as a new advocate upon this Question, as he has infused, by that physical force oratory, of which he is so great a master, some new light upon a question which has been worn almost threadbare. But I do not think that when his speech is read tomorrow it will satisfy that great portion of the people of the country who object to church rates, that the system now existing should be permanently continued. I was not present at the opening of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but when I entered the House he was telling the House that the Nonconformists of the olden time wore a much better class of men than the Dissenters of the present day; that they made no objections to the equity of church rates. That was a sentiment which was received with great enthusiasm by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who for the first time have appeared as decided admirers of the Nonconformists of that time. In answer to that it may be said from the time of Queen Elizabeth down to the Act of Toleration the principles of religious freedom were little understood in this country. We know that not the Church only when it had the power, but many of the Nonconformists themselves, admitted that it was right not only to raise taxes for the support of a particular Church—their own Church—but that it was positively right to coerce those persons who held religious opinions different from their own. They had not advanced as far as the great body of the English people, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the party they represent, have now advanced, and therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument goes for very little. But he has treated the House to a public reading of a large portion of the evidence of, I think, two gentlemen who were witnesses before the Committee of the House of Lords. I
    278
    shall refer only to the evidence of one of these Gentlemen—Mr. Bunting. I suspect that when the name of Bunting was mentioned there was a general impression that this was the evidence of a very distinguished man who, although not nominally, yet actually, was Bishop or Archbishop, and almost Pope, in the sect of which he was so distinguished a member. But that is not the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, not for the first time in his life as a counsel learned in the law, has been beholden for his brief to an attorney practising in Manchester. Mr. Bunting is not a minister of the Methodist Church, as I understand, but is in the profession of the law, and therefore I must strip him of any authority he has upon this matter in connection with the Methodist Church in consequence of his bearing the name of Bunting. I must say, further, that this Gentleman, although in some sort a Nonconformist, inasmuch as I presume he attends a Methodist Chapel, is a politician of a peculiar kind, such as is not found very frequently among the dissenting body. I dare say he agrees with the most obstructive, if I may use the term, Conservative or Tory among hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if we had taken his opinion upon all those questions of policy which this House has decided in favour of popular rights and justice to the people of this country during the last twenty years, I have not the least doubt that Mr. Bunting would have been as conclusive against all those concessions as he appears to have been upon the question of church rates. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not treat the House quite fairly in stating the evidence of this Gentleman, because he did not feel himself courageous enough to say that the Wesleyan body was in favour of church rates. I find he says, in answer to a question whether there was any likelihood of petitions being sent by them:—
    "No: from a fear on the part of those who sympathize with the Church of England of eliciting an opinion to the contrary, There is among us a general agreement not to disturb questions which we do not consider essential. The opposition would, I believe, be from a minority in our own body"
    "A distinct minority?—I think I should call it so."
    The House will see from this that although Mr. Bunting is not remarkable for great hesitation generally in his opinions upon this matter, yet he does hesitate to say that the Wesleyan body was with any

    279
    sort of unanimity in favour of church rates. And I can give my testimony, living as I do in a neighbourhood where they are very numerous, and where their services have been very great, to the fact that when the question of church rates is mooted and contests take place, although a few leading men are anxious to keep the question quiet, because it is one which might disturb their body, as far as my observation goes, a very large number—I think a majority—who attend their chapels, have generally acted with the party by which church rates were opposed. But it must be borne in mind that the Wesleyan body is of a peculiar character, that its government is more strictly priestly than anything that exists in the Church of England and almost beyond anything in the Church of Borne. The Conference, composed of 100 ministers, dominates not only over the private opinions and individual action of the members, but also over what I may call the corporate or sect action, and throughout their numerous chapels in this country, unless the Conference were to give the order or its permission, we should not find from any of these congregations petitions presented to this House. But from this fact may be traced an important series of circumstances—that there have been from that body numerous secessions of very noteworthy character, secessions which have not arisen from any difference as to the doctrine, but simply as to the absolute Government of the Conference. Notwithstanding all this, as I have said, great numbers of them—I believe a very great majority—vote in opposition to church rates whenever a contest takes place, and do unite in sympathy upon this question with the great body of Dissenters belonging to other sects. I should not have said so much about this particular body had it not been for the extraordinary importance which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given to this part of the subject. I find, however, that even from the Conference Methodists there have been 135 petitions presented lately to the House: from the Methodist New Connexion 97, from the Methodist Free Church 164, from the Primitive Methodists 265, from the Calvinistic Methodists 108, from the United Methodists, the Methodist reformers, and the Wesleyan Association, 47; making a total of more than 800 petitions which have been presented from that body in favour of this Bill. Now, as to the other sects of Dissenters, I believe
    280
    right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to make out any kind of case or to show any difference of opinion among them upon this question. I think he will admit that they arc, with as much unanimity as can ever be expected upon public questions, in favour of a repeal of church rates. But if it be, as he says, that this movement is merely the movement of a few busy, meddling agitators belonging to those sects—whose numbers by the way he has not given very accurately—if that be so, how comes it that throughout the country and in this House they have obtained so large a share of support? That fact is a very ugly one, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman passed it over. Even the Church, on whose behalf the hon. and learned Gentleman professes to speak, is itself not unanimous upon this question, and in all the parishes in towns and cities where church rates have been abolished, every Member who has been engaged in this question will admit that no inconsiderable number of those who regularly attend the services of the Church have joined those agitating, meddling Dissenters in their attempt to put an end to the system of church rates. I should say in those districts a large minority—I will not say a majority—of Churchmen have been as willing to get church rates abolished as the Dissenters themselves. I live in a town in which contests about church rates have been carried on in past years with a vigour and determination, and, if you like it, with an animosity which has not been surpassed in any other part of the kingdom. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who profess to be in favour of what is called a stand-up fight, will be glad to hear that nothing could exceed the activity of their friends in that parish, nothing could exceed the profuseness with which they were willing to pay for a contest, in order that all might have to contribute to a Church which at that time they themselves were not willing adequately to support. The very last contest of this kind cost the Church party in the parish as much money as, if invested at the common rate of interest, would have supported the fabric of the church for ever. [A cry of "How much?"] I can tell the hon. Gentleman what was the estimate formed, which I believe was never disputed, and which, judging from the expenditure on the other side, was not, I should say, very inaccurate. I believe that the expenditure would not be less than from £3,000 to £4,000. It is a large parish,

    281
    probably ten miles square, and contains nearly 100,000 inhabitants; and I need not tell hon. Members that there is no class of people in England more determined and more unconquerable, whichever side they take, than are the people of the county from which I come. What was the result of that struggle? The result was that the church rate was for ever entirely abolished in that parish. I have since seen several lists of candidates for the churchwarden ship put forth by Churchmen, each of which claimed support upon the ground that they would never consent to the reimposition of a church rate; and the parish has been for many years upon this question a model of tranquillity. It would not be enough that it should be a model of tranquillity if the result had followed which the hon. and learned Gentleman foretold in such dolorous language, that religion would be uncared for, and that the Gospel would no longer be preached to the poor; but I will undertake to say that since this contest that venerable old parish church has had laid out upon it, in repairing and beautifying it, from money subscribed not altogether, but mainly by Churchmen, ten times, aye, twenty times as much as was ever expended upon it during a far longer period of years in which church rates were levied. During that period there were discussions about the graveyard, about the hearses, about the washing of the surplice, about somebody who had to sweep out the church. There were discussions of all sorts, of a most irritating and offensive character. The clock which was there for the benefit of the public no longer told the time, and, in fact, there was evidence of that sort of decay to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed as the inevitable result of the abolition of church rates. Since the rate ceased to be levied the clock has kept time with most admirable fidelity, and to such an extent has the liberality of Churchmen gone, that very lately they have put up another clock in a neighbouring church. I believe that in the parish of Rochdale the Church people have received far more benefit from the abolition of the church rate than the Dissenters have. They have found out, what they never knew before, that when placed upon the same platform as Dissenters, and obliged to depend upon their own resources, they are as liberal and zealous as other sects. I wish that the right hon. and learned
    282
    Gentleman had told us, and I hope that some one who follows him will do so, how it happens that year by year there has been growing in this House a power in opposition to church rates, while at the same there has been less animosity throughout the country upon this question. I believe it has arisen from the growth of a better feeling on both sides, and from the fact that year by year there have been secessions from the supporters of church rates throughout the country, and that more and more without the action of Parliament the principle embodied in the clauses of the Bill of my hon. Friend has come to be acted upon. Now what is the real point between us?—because I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that if it could be done it would be better that this question should be for ever disposed of. What is the question at issue between us? Does any man dispute the evils that have arisen? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has, in a speech of great vigour, endeavoured to throw ridicule and contempt upon the great body of the Dissenting population of this country. ["No, no!"] Well, at any rate, he has not refrained from expressions of harshness towards those whom he charges with being the movers in this question. But does he believe, or do any of you believe, that if those persons did not in the main possess the confidence of the great body of the Dissenters, they could in a week, a fortnight, or a month, stir them up from one end of the country to the other, and bring to your table the signatures of 500,000 of your countrymen? [Cries of "600,000."] I am reminded that the number is 600,000, but in a matter of this kind I am not particular to 100,000 more or less. I say, then, is there any one here who disputes the evils which have arisen from these discussions r I confess that I have sometimes wished that I could speak in this House, even if it were for only one half hour, in the character of a Member of the Church of England. If I could have done that I should have appealed to the House in language far more emphatic and impressive than I have ever been able to use as a Dissenter, in favour of the abolition of this most mischievous and obnoxious impost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no plan. I think he was right in making that admission. I believe there are only two courses which can be pursued. One is to leave the law exactly as it is, a course which if this matter did not touch a ques-

    283
    tion of religion, I should not complain of, because it leaves the majority in every parish to decide for itself. The other plan is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock. You have tried every kind of contrivance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) proposed a plan. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin was a Member of the Government by which that plan was proposed; and, as he now says that he has no plan, I presume that he has abandoned the plan of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, also tried plans. Indeed, there are in the House many who have aspired to legislate upon this subject, but have failed in these attempts at conciliation; and I think we must all feel conscious that we must either remain as we are, or adopt the Bill which is now before us. I confess that I am altogether against any kind of dodge by which this matter may be even temporarily settled. I think that if this Church be a national establishment, you cannot by law insist that its support shall be drawn from only a portion of the population. I agree with you altogether in that. If I were a Churchman I would never consent to it, and, not being a Churchman, I wholly repudiate it. The dissensions to which I have referred have prevailed, prevail still, and cannot terminate as long as this imposts exists. What is its natural and inevitable result? It must be to create and stimulate the pride of supremacy in the dominant Church, and at the same time produce what I shall call the irritation of subjugation and injustice on the part of that great portion of the people who support their own ministers and places of worship, and who think that they ought not to be called upon to support those of any other sect or church. Now, is it necessary that this should continue? I often have occasion in this House to give hope to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are probably the most despairing political party that any country ever had within its borders. They despair of almost everything. They despaired of agriculture. Agriculture triumphs. They despair of their Church, yet whenever that Church has been left to its own resources and to the zeal of its Members its triumph has been manifest to the country and to the world. Are you made of different material from the five
    284
    millions of people who go to the Dissenting chapels of England and Wales? You have your churches,—I speak of the old ones, not of those recently erected by means of votuntary contributions,—you have your churches, which you call national, and you have them for nothing. You have your ministers paid out of property anciently bequeathed or intrusted to the State for their use. In that respect you stand in a far better position for undertaking what, if church rates are abolished, you must undertake, than do the great body of your Dissenting brethren. Have you less zeal, have you less liberality, than they have? Do not you continually boast in this House that you are the owners of the great bulk of the landed property of the country? Are you not the depositaries of political power, and do you not tell us that when a Dissenter becomes rich he always walks away from the chapel into your church? If this be so, am I appealing in vain to you, or reasoning in vain with you, when I try to encourage you to believe that if there were no church rates the members of your church and your congregations would be greatly improved, and that, as has taken place in the parish in which I live, your churches would be better supported by your own voluntary and liberal contributions, than they can ever be by the penny per pound issuing from the pockets of men who do not attend your church, and who are rendered ten times more hostile to it by the very effort to make them contribute to its support. I believe that church rates must before long be abolished. Hence I wish to afford some hope and consolation, if I can, to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why, Mr. Osborne and Mr. Bunting, from whom the right hon. and learned Member so largely quoted, themselves belong to a body that has done marvels in this country in erecting chapels, paying ministers, establishing schools, raising the dead, if you like—for men who were dead to religion have been made Christians; and they have preached the Gospel to the poor in every county, I might almost say every parish, in the kingdom. Yet they have not come to Parliament for grants of money; and, although they have often come to me and others for contributions to their chapels and schools, they have never had any force of law to enable them to raise their funds. Throughout England and Wales what would be the condition of your population, your religious establishments, your

    285
    education, if it were not for the liberality of those sects of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks fit to speak in disparaging terms. But I pass to his own country, and though I should like to see Irish Members more frequently taking part in the discussion of questions affecting England and Wales than they do, I was surprised to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no reference whatever to what has taken place in the island from which he himself comes. In the year 1833 you abolished the vestry cess, the church rate of Ireland; you abolished one-fourth of the tithe—that is, you took it from the Church and gave it to the landlord; you did a good many things with the Irish Church at that time which many Gentlemen of the same party as the right hon. and learned Member denounced, just as you denounce the present Bill. Of course it will be said that the Earl of Derby has since then changed his opinions, and therefore the views he held at that period will have no authority with his followers now. But what has been the effect on that Church? Is there a man in this House with the slightest knowledge of what has occurred in Ireland during the last thirty years, who will not admit that the Irish Protestant Establishment would have been absolutely uprooted and separated from the State for ever long before now but for the large measure of change—I will say of reform—to which the Earl of Derby, as a Minister of that day, was a party? If that be true, what right has anybody to charge the hon. Member for Tavistock with a deadly hostility to the Church of England? I do not believe there is a man in this country at this moment who has any hostility to the Church of England as a Church. I never met with such a man. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to a friend of mine who not long ago had a seat in this House, although he did not mention him by name. I allude to Mr. Miall. Why, there is no man in England whose character for religion, morality, intelligence, or a persistent devotion to what he believes to be right stands higher than that of Mr. Miall. But Mr. Miall has not the smallest objection to the Church of England as a religious body, any more than he has to the Methodist Conference or any other denomination which teaches its own peculiar views of Christianity. What he objects to is that the Church should be, as it has been, so much of a po-
    286
    litical institution. And there can be no doubt but that among the clergy of the Establishment and the most thoughtful of her sons there is throughout the kingdom at this moment a deep sentiment at work which, altogether, apart from Mr. Miall and the Liberation Society, is destined before many years are over to make great changes in the constitution and condition of that Church. And I undertake to say that, if their views, or those of Mr. Miall, were carried out by Parliament, the Church would still be a Church at least as great, as powerful, and as respected as it ever was at any period of its history. I believe it would, as effectually as it ever has done, raise to life those who are religiously dead, and, at the same time, more extensively than it does now, preach the Gospel to the poor. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have given us another lesson from Ireland. There the great body of the people—not the possessors of wealth—are in connection with the Roman Catholic Church. Many of us have been in Ireland. I have myself spent several weeks there, travelling from one part of the country to another. I saw chapels everywhere, that great cathedrals had been built, that there were evidences of great zeal and wonderful liberality among a people at that time poor and dejected, and in a lower physical condition, I undertake to say, than could have been found in any other population in any Christian country of Europe. The Irish Catholics, without any assistance from the State except a paltry grant, which I believe many of them would gladly forego, have provided amply for all the religious wants of their people. And I venture to assert that religion—not now speaking of particular doctrines or forms—has there permeated even to the lowest class of society in a manner that is not equalled in this part of the kingdom, where your Church Establishment has for ages reigned almost supreme. But if you are not satisfied with the case of Ireland, let us go to Wales. There you have a poor population of Methodists. The Welsh Dissenters do not own the great estates. They have no ancient endowments, no grants from Parliament. They do not even send representatives to this House—["Oh!"]—representatives I mean of their peculiar views. Eight-tenths of the people of Wales have no connection with the Established Church. Yet, poor as they are, compared with the population of England, there is not a nook

    287
    or corner of the Principality in which there are not a chapel, a school, and a minister, or in which you do not constantly sec the influence of religious teaching on the character and habits of the people. But go a little further north, to a land where men are not supposed to misunderstand their own interests. I refer to the country on the other side of the Tweed. You have an Established Church there. Many years ago you had two considerable secessions from its pale who became powerful sects. They have since united themselves, and their power has proportionately increased. But lately, within the recollection of every Member in this House, for it is but seventeen years ago, there was another great secession; and from what men fancied was the ruin of the Established Church of Scotland there arose a new Church, offering, I will say, to the world, an example of zeal and munificence such as has not been witnessed in this country during the lifetime of the present generation. Not long ago, while in Scotland—a country to which I am very glad to flee when we are liberated from attendance in this House—I took the pains to make some inquiry upon this question; and I found that the Free Church, which comprises probably not more than one-third of that portion of the population who pay any attention to religious matters, raised voluntarily, during the year when I made the inquiry, a larger sum than the whole annual emoluments of the Established Church of Scotland. It has built, I think, something like 700 churches throughout that part of the kingdom, and as many manses or dwellings for its ministers. It has also established schools in almost every parish. And I tell the House with the utmost sincerity that I believe I never questioned any man in Scotland as to the effect of the disruption who did not admit that, painful as it was, and utterly as he and many others might have opposed it, still it has been full of blessings to the people of that country. I believe the number of persons who frequent places of worship, the number of schools, and the number of scholars who attend them, are all far larger than ever they were before the last great secession. Bear in mind that, with the exception of a very few persons of high station in society, including one or two Members of the other House and two or three of this, the property of Scotland, as far as property is to be measured by the possession of the soil, has not gone with the Free Church at all.
    288
    Yet you find throughout the whole of that country those vast results from a zeal, a religious fervour, a munificence, which are not a whit greater than would be exhibited under the same circumstances by Members of the Church of England. But such a state of things, I say, must raise the character of the people of Scotland, high as it was before, still higher in the estimation of the Christian world. Only one other point with regard to this voluntary question. Apart from the discussions and divisions, from Bills and clauses in this House, if I were to ask any hon. Member on the other side whether he believed that the Church of England was not, or would not, become as liberal as any other sect, I have no doubt he would at once say that to assert the contrary would be to slander and misrepresent the members of that Church. Well, I think so too, and the evidence lies in what the Church has been doing of late years. If you stand upon any eminence in the neighbourhood of any large town or city in England you will see everywhere towers and spires indicating the temples that have been raised in recent days for the worship of God; and so also, if you travel over the country, as you now rapidly do, you will see through the glass of the railway carriage one spire here, another there, and a third yonder. I do not always admire their architecture, but some of them are beautiful objects in the landscape of which they form part. Well, this has all been achieved, not by the votes of Parliament, for they have ceased, but by exactly the same religious zeal, the same Christian benevolence, which have distinguished the rest of your countrymen, and which you, the richest and proudest of them all, would surely, under the like circumstances, equally display. I want to persuade you that this is a good Bill for the Established Church. I am not about to try to take you in by allowing you to suppose that I agree with you as to a State Establishment for teaching religion. I agree on that abstract question with Mr. Miall and the Liberation Society. I believe it is an evil to the State and to religion; but that is not a question for us to discuss now, or one which probably this generation will ever be called on to decide. I say, the abolition of these irritating levies of money in Ireland has been of great advantage to the Established Church of Ireland. I say, the more you remove your question of an Establishment from that constant and irritating

    289
    contest and discussion which are inseparable from the continuance of these rates, the more probably, for a long period of time, you will consolidate your Church; and I am inclined to believe that its fall as a State establishment will never come from the assaults of those who are without it, but will rather come from the strong differences of doctrine among those within its pale. I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to look to a point in respect to which their Church is at a great disadvantage as compared with Dissenting congregations. I am in a position to observe both of them with great impartiality, because I belong to a sect which is very small, which some people say is decaying, although I believe its main principles are always spreading. I have no particular sympathy with Wesleyans, Independents, or Baptists, any more than I have with the congregations which assemble in your churches. But have you not observed in London, and more particularly in the country, where you are more minutely acquainted with circumstances—have you not observed, that among the congregations of Dissenting bodies there is a greater activity in all matters which belong to their Churches, and to objects which they unite together in promoting as a religious community? Don't you find that from the richest and the most influential man who enters a chapel on a Sunday to the humblest of the congregation there is, as it were, a chain of sympathy running through them all, which gives to them a great strength, which combines them together, which influences the humblest and the highest for good, and which gives to that congregation a power which is found to be greatly less existent in a congregation of the Established Church? I have spoken of this to many persons who differ from me on all those questions of church establishments, church rates, and the like; but I never spoke to any man in the habit of attending the Established Church who did not admit to me that it is one of the things they most deplore, that among the 500 persons more or less who attend any particular church there was infinitely less sympathy, co-operation, union, and power of action than was evidenced among the various Dissenting communities in this country almost without exception. But if you had none of these rates to levy by law you would be placed—and it would be a most material advantage—in the same position as are the congregations of Dissenting
    290
    bodies. You would be obliged, of course, in the management of your congregational affairs, to consult the members in general; you would have your monthly or quarterly meetings; and thus you would know who were your neighhours in church, and you would be united together, as Dissenting congregations are. And I maintain that your religions activity and life for all purposes of missionary work at home and abroad would be greatly increased and strengthened; and so far your congregations, your ministers, and your churches would be great gainers. Some hon. Gentlemen will say that I am a violent partisan on this question, and that I have partaken of the animosity which I stated to have existed in the parish in which I live. I do not deny that in times past I have taken a warm, and it may be, occasionally, a too heated part in the contents and discussions on this question; but, so far as I am concerned, the feelings engendered by these strifes have been swept away; I am older than I was then; I make great allowance for men's passions, as I ask that they should make allowance for mine. This question has come to a crisis; and I ask the House to consider whether it would not be to the advantage of the Church, of morality, religion, and the public peace, that this question should now be set at rest once and for ever. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—it is one of the faults of a high classical education—following the example of the right hon. Gentleman who delighted us all with a most brilliant but most illogical speech last night, affrighted us with an account of what took place under the democracies of Greece, and asks us to follow the example of those who were believers in the Paganism of ancient Borne. He says, did not the Roman emperors, consuls, and people go in procession after the vile gods and goddesses which they worshipped? It is true they did, and 1 hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels sorry by this time that he asked us to follow an example of that kind. Rome has perished, and the religion which it professed has perished with it. The Christian religion is wholly different, and if there be one thing written more legibly than another in every page of that book on which you profess that your Church is founded, it is that men should be just one to another, kind and brotherly one to another, and should not ask of each other to do that which they are not willing themselves to do. I say that this law

    291
    of church rates is a law which violates, and violates most obviously and outrageously, every law of justice and of mercy which is written in that book, and it is because I believe it does so that I am certain that it never can be of advantage to your Church, if your Church be a true Church; and, believing that, and feeling how much the interests and sympathies and wishes of millions of our countrymen are in favour of the abolition of this impost, I ask you to do what I am now ready to do—to give a cordial support to the third reading of this Bill of my hon. Friend.
    MR. DISRAELI: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat mistaken the arguments and the views of my right hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill. I do not pretend to defend the character of Mr. Bunting. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not a Pope, but an attorney, and that he has given a brief to my right hon. Friend. There is an old story, too stale almost to refer to, that when you have no case—the House recollects the rest. The hon. Gentleman misses the entire argument of my right hon. and learned Friend, and finds it very convenient to abuse Mr. Bunting, a gentleman who I have every reason to believe is of high respectability and influence among the estimable sect to which he belongs. Nor will I enter into the question of the church rate contests and controversies of Rochdale. They are well known, and have been related to-night with sentiments of epical exultation. The hon. Gentleman has talked of the immense sums of money expended in those contests, and I have no doubt, whenever the hon. Member engages in controversies—such is his spirit and such his talent for producing and promoting resistance—that the contest on both sides is conducted with great animation. And when the hon. Gentleman congratulates himself on the result, and assures the House that the condition of the fabric of the church at Rochdale is quite satisfactory, I only wish that to prove his case he had given us some information respecting the condition of the churches in Birmingham. I recollect a petition being presented to the House within the last few years, by the late colleague of the hon. Gentleman, which did not present so satisfactory an account of the churches in Birmingham under the influence of the voluntary principle as the hon. Gentleman has given us to-night of the condition of
    292
    the church at Rochdale. That petition, in favour of church rates, was presented four years ago by the late Mr. Muntz, and it emanated from the clergy of the rural deanery of Birmingham. It states that,
    "Your petitioners have had painful experience of the evils attending the long suspension of the legal means of maintaining and repairing the fabrics of their churches, as well as of providing for the proper observance of Divine service, and are enabled to say that the voluntary system, after a trial of twenty-five years, has proved inadequate to supply the wants of the church."
    Indeed it will be seen from the evidence taken by the House of Lords that several of the churches in Birmingham are in a stale of great decay and dilapidation. It was not my intention to refer to the circumstance had not the hon. Gentleman founded his argument on the individual instance of Rochdale. I do not want this great question to be decided on mere instances, taken here and there; but when he refers to the state of the ecclesiastical fabric in his native town, I think I have a right to refer to the state of the fabrics under the voluntary system in the still more considerable town which the hon. Gentleman represents, and if any conclusive argument on a question of such gravity can be drawn from the circumstances, I think the House will agree with me that the weight of evidence must be more on my side from the state of the churches of Birmingham than on that of the hon. Gentleman from the single instance he has referred to in the town of Rochdale. Throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman was delivering, not an argument, but a eulogy in favour of the voluntary system; but that really is not the question before the House. The hon. Gentleman, as always in this case, has dealt in views which are purely speculative, and must necessarily be such, referring as they do to a condition of society which does not obtain in this country; and he has attempted to illustrate and prove his assumptions by instances which I can show him are entirely fallacious. For, after all, when the hon. Gentleman at such length dwelt on the efficacy of the voluntary system in Scotland, and the non-necessity of any compulsory legislation in order to support the ecclesiastical fabrics in that country—what did it amount to? Why, to this—that, no doubt, there has been a great expenditure from a feeling of religious zeal in Scotland in favour of new manses, and new kirks, and new endow-

    293
    ments; but the hon. Gentleman quite forgot that all this time, simultaneous with this great burst of religious feeling, and this remarkable investment for spiritual purposes without compulsion, there is an established Church of Scotland, maintained by the most rigid and inflexible church rate that can be devised—not the church rate that exists in this country, which depends on the decision of the majority, but one which no majority can influence, and which, under every circumstance is raised. All the time this remarkable investment was taking place, and this ebullition of religious feeling was evinced in Scotland, he forgot to remember that a church rate was not only in existence but levied with the utmost rigidity and strictness. So, with the picturesque view the hon. Gentleman gave us of himself when mounted on an elevation in the neighbourhood of a large town, and taking a survey of the ecclesiastical architecture, which he was careful to tell us did not always accord with his own taste; whenever he sees a new church, he says all this is done by the voluntary principle, why do you adhere to the ancient and barbarous principle which I recommend you to abolish? But he forgets that such exertions of the voluntary principle in the raising of churches are not of new introduction. The voluntary principle has been always at work in raising churches; and it would be very difficult to fix on any church in England that has not been raised by that same influence. The question is, whether the voluntary principle will keep churches in repair. The two illustrations, therefore, which the hon. Gentleman took from the present state of Scotland and England, in so far as we find a great expenditure in favour of sacred objects which the law does not compel, are really quite illusory, and do not in the least enforce the argument he wishes to impress on the House. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman says if there be such a feeling in favour of levying church rates in England—if there be among the Dissenters such a partial adhesion to that system, why has there been of late years so much interest on the subject in this House, and why is there a considerable party in it anxious that some legislation should take place on the subject? Now, I think, I can tell the hon. Gentleman the reason, No doubt there has been on both sides of the House a great unanimity to meet this subject, but that has arisen from an impression very prevalent in the
    294
    country and in this House that there had been vexations complained of which might be remedied; that there have been scruples of conscience which have been urged, and which like all scruples of conscience have been at once listened to with sympathy and respect; but during all the period when there has been a considerable interest and even excitement on this subject in this House, the object has not been that which the hon. Gentleman now frankly confesses to be his object; but it has been an anxious desire of Gentlemen on both sides of the House to meet a complaint which they thought might efficiently be met, and to remove a grievance which they thought might be practically encountered. But, Sir, thirty years have passed since this matter of church rates has been a public question of large interest; and how have these thirty years been occupied? Why, Sir, they have been occupied in pleas which time has proved to be insincere, and in plans and projects of adjustment which, because the pleas for abolition were insincere, have necessarily proved fallacious and inadequate. That is the reason why there has been so much interest in this House, and why all our efforts have been futile. But the hon. Gentleman, the self-appointed representative of the school of abolition, has, in his speech to-night, told us frankly what is his object, and we cannot help observing that the object he now eulogizes is not that we have been considering and desiring to remedy during the last thirty years. He tells us that the Church of the nation ought not to be supported for merely a portion of the nation. He tells us that this is only an abstract opinion, but, if only an abstract opinion, we demur assenting to a Bill the object of which is to convert a mere abstract opinion into a very definite and practical policy. He says that the Church of this nation is supported only for a portion of the nation, and that is a state of affairs that ought not to be endured. We have brought the question, then, to a very clear issue. I do not wish at all to diminish its importance, but it is a very great advantage that we have it clearly expressed in language no one can misunderstand, and that we know really what we are about. Well, then, before we assume that it is a verity on which we are called to legislate, let us be at once sure that we are acting safely in accepting the dogma of the hon. Gentleman as an axiom. The Church of the nation, he says, is only

    295
    the Church of a portion of the nation, because there are some dissenting from its doctrines and discipline, or not within its pale. Let us consider who those persons are. It is of great importance that we should treat this subject with calmness. It is not a subject of the moment only, it will affect the future, and it is imperative that every step we take should be a safe one. Let us examine briefly the position of the Dissenters. The Dissenters of this country range under two heads—there are first the descendants of the old Nonconformists, persons exercising considerable influence from their property, and, I willingly admit, from their high character and integrity. Well, these are the descendants of generations back which had a decided quarrel with the Church. They separated from the Church because the Church in the days of their separation was, as they alleged and believed, conducted in a spirit of superstition and oppression. But we must remember this—the hon. Gentleman has reminded us to-night of the circumstance—that there is no difference between the descendants of the old Nonconformists and the members of the Church of England in doctrine. The Church of England is otherwise as much changed from the Church of the days of the quarrel with the Nonconformists as the Nonconformists themselves are changed. There is, in what venerable Hooker would call Ecclesiastical Polity, something which, if conducted with temper and due humility, recommends itself to tender and refined minds. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman has represented, that many of the most distinguished Nonconformist families are absorbed in the national Church at the present moment, and therefore the hon. Gentleman can hardly contend that the old quarrel with Nonconformity is in the 19th century a ground on which you should put an end to the Established Church of England. Then there is the second class of Dissenters more considerable in numbers, but more recent in origin and growth. They are Dissenters who have become so from the circumstance that the population of this country has outgrown the Church of the country. It is not superstition or oppression that has driven this considerable body of men from the Church; at the worst, it was negligence. But if you admit the principle of an established national Church, if you admit the fact that, during the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, the popula-
    296
    tion of this country greatly outgrew the Church, will you, as a consequence, adopt the conclusion of the hon. Member for Birmingham that the Established Church ought to be abolished, because from negligence and inefficient means it has not met the spiritual requirements of a vast population? That would be hardly a wise and statesmanlike course to pursue. On the contrary, you should rather increase the means and extend the influence of the Church in such circumstances, than reduce its power and diminish its efficiency. When we recollect—what no one can deny—that the exertions of the Established Church of this country during the last quarter of a century, and especially at this moment, show that it is mindful of the population which had so much outgrown the sphere of its influence, and that it is endeavouring to compensate for this want of diligence and efficiency, that is an additional argument why we should not follow the policy of the hon. Gentleman. There is a third portion of the population not under the influence of the Church, but it is a portion that is not under the influence of any other religious community; and that is a consideration which, when questions of this kind are under the consideration of Parliament, we must meet. If there be a considerable portion of the population that are practically without the pale of the National Church, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of those sects he admires so much, are acting in a missionary spirit towards that population? He cannot pretend to say so; and are we, who in this House desire to maintain the Constitution of this country, to lay down the principle that because there is a considerable portion of the population over whom no religious body is exercising any spiritual influence, therefore we are to abolish the National Church, which is the only corporation that can offer us any means by which that want may be supplied? I say, therefore, that the argument of the hon. Gentleman, that if the Church of a nation is supported only by a portion of the nation it ought not to be maintained, is not an argument that the Members of this House can accept or sanction. That appears to me, totally irrespective of all higher considerations, to be the most imprudent and impolitic course that we could pursue. The hon. Gentleman has spoken to-night sometimes, apparently, in a tone of derision, and sometimes with considerable respect and appreciation, of the

    297
    influence of the Established Church. [Mr. BRIGHT: Not with derision.] I certainly thought that the churches supported by church rates were made objects of derision by the hon. Gentleman, while he spoke of those supported by the voluntary efforts of the communicants in terms of respect and commendation. But I have no wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, or to offer to the House anything but serious argument, of the truth of which I am convinced. One observation on this subject of the influence of the Church. It appears to me that the very marrow of this question, so far as Parliament is concerned, lies in a due appreciation of that influence. We have been of late years very unwilling that questions connected with the Church should be introduced to the consideration of this House, and, in a certain limited point of view, that was a very proper and reasonable course. No doubt, after the great changes that have taken place in this House during the last thirty years, after you admitted Roman Catholics, Dissenters, Jews, and indeed all subjects of Her Majesty, without reference to their religious opinions, the position and character of this House, as regards the Church of England as a religious body, had considerably changed. Before you consented to these changes in the elements of our assembly the House of Commons was a species of lay convocation; and it was very natural and reasonable that we should have before us the condition, discipline, and even the doctrines of the Church of which all were members. But when this great change in our character occurred I can easily understand why the doctrines of the Church should never be brought under the consideration of an assembly, the members of which did not belong to that Church, and even the discipline as rarely as possible. But though the spiritual influence of the Church of England is not a matter that should be introduced into our debates, it is impossible to shut our eyes to the social and political influence of that Church. And any man who attempts to shut his eyes to the social and political influence of the Church of England will, in his speculations on public affairs, omit one of the most important elements that can enter into the government of the country. I will not merely say that the social and political influence of the Church of England must necessarily operate beneficially for the community, for that may be said truly of every Church. I will not merely say that the
    298
    tenour and character of its doctrines naturally lead to tranquillity, peace, and order, for that may be said truly of every Church. That may be said truly of the Church of France. No one doubts that the 36,000 curés of France are men generally devoted to the welfare of the people of that country, and that they exercise a beneficial influence on society. No one doubts that the general tenour, character, and tendency of the higher members of the hierarchy of every Church on the Continent are favourable to tranquillity and order. But there is one peculiarity in the Church of England which we should take into consideration when the opinion that we ought to separate Church and State is enforced, not merely as an abstract position, and it is this—that though the Church of England is connected with the State, it is independent of the Government. It is the boast of England that though our Government is weak our society is strong. It has been said of continental nations, and very truly, that there Governments are strong, but society weak. The consequence of having a strong society is, that you have local government and public liberty. You have that national character, which is the peculiarity of England, and which is a consequence of local government and public liberty. I cannot contemplate without apprehension the consequences to our society if you were to withdraw the influence of the Established Church, as one of its most important elements. The change that it would produce in our peculiar society and in our national character would be such, that I doubt whether the most far-seeing and profoundest men most versed in public affairs could possibly anticipate it. What would be the result of following the policy now recommended in so off-hand a way? If hon. Gentlemen believe, as I believe, that this Church, which, though connected with the State, is independent of the Government, is one of the strongest elements of our society, and one of the best securities for local government and public liberty, they will hesitate before they sanction with such facility as heretofore the theories which are recommended by the hon. Baronet who promotes this Bill. Is this a time of all others when it can be the interest of Parliament to weaken the social elements of this country? I do not want to indulge in alarming views of the future. They are so serious that there is no man in this House and no think-

    299
    ing man out of it, who is not impressed with the contingencies that may arise. Sir, I trust in Providence that our affairs may be guided with such wisdom and discretion that, whatever may occur, whatever changes may happen, this country will long avoid sharing in those dangers and struggles that may arise. But I am sure that the younger Members of this House will meet during the last portion of this century a period of time which will contrast with that in which we have lived. That has been a period of reaction from former struggles—a period of tranquillity, prosperity, and progress. Happy should I be if I could think that the future half of this century will resemble it. But no thinking man can shut his eyes to what may be the impending struggles of the world; and, Sir, are we at such a moment to tamper with one of the most powerful of our institutions, and to which, contrary to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, I believe the great body of the people of this country are wedded with deep affection, with the conviction that it has operated for four centuries greatly to the advantage and benefit of this country? The hon. Member has contrasted the action of the Church with the very meritorious efforts and influence of some sects of recent origin. But we must remember that to-night we are considering the position of an institution that has existed for centuries, and the prescription that surrounds it proves the deep root it has taken, and the wisdom that has hallowed its existence for countless generations. Is the House prepared to take a step that may weaken and shatter the social fabric of this country? I do not believe that, when the House considers this question in a deeper and maturer spirit than it has hitherto done, it will sanction the rash and ruinous proposition of the hon. Member for Tavistock; and I trust that in the division we shall come to we shall be able to reassure the mind of the country, and not reduce those means by which in the hour of danger we may be best enabled to show that firm and constant spirit which has before preserved this land.
    SIR JOHN TRELAWNY, in reply, said, at that late hour (twenty minutes to twelve) he would not detain the House by replying at length to the arguments which had been adduced on the other side; but a personal appeal had been made to him with respect to the Liberation Society Which he felt it right to notice. He
    300
    was not a member of that society. Were he living in an entirely new country, or were he abount to found a colony, he certainly would have no connection between the Church and the State; but in this country he found an ancient system in existence, and he could not be a party to releasing the power which the State had over a religious trust fund; otherwise, how would it be known what the clergy would do with respect to education? He did not identify himself with the Liberation Society, nor did he concur in all the views which had been expressed by Dr. Foster and Mr. Samuel Morley, before a Committee of the House of Lords; but he believed that the association comprised men who sought honestly and openly a certain end, and he had every reason to respect, and the House and the public ought to respect Dr. Foster, for his outspoken sentiments; the expression of which, however, had undoubtedly increased his (Sir John Trelawny's) difficulties in conducting his case. Whatever might be the result of this Bill, practically speaking he believed church rates were gone. It could not be supposed that Dissenters would allow them to be imposed, whenever fortune placed within their reach the means of succesfully resisting them. The House would do well to send this measure to the House of Lords. He believed the opponents of the measure were chiefly influenced by a desire to stand well with the clergy, which they would not do unless they once more divided the House. Possibly the House of Lords would not accept the Bill; but if they did not, they certainly might do worse. They would probably have another measure embodying substantially the principles he enforced; and that House would then be asked to consider them in another form. Far better would it be to pass the present Bill, and settle the measure once and for ever.
    MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it had been his intention to have proposed a clause to the effect that church rates should not be defrayed out of the poor rates, and he believed that the hon. Baronet, to a certain extent, approved of the principle of the Amendment; but, owing to the rules of the House, he was prevented from proposing the clause on that occasion. He was informed that at the present moment there were 400 parishes in England and Wales which paid their church rates out of their poor rates. In the Metropolis there were between forty and fifty parishes—some of them, it was true, under the protection of local Acts—

    301
    which did the same. He maintained that this was not only a robbery of the poor, but it was a fraud upon the law itself, and it was with that conviction that he wished to propose the clause. In point of fact, the Bill would not effect the abolition of church rates unless such a clause were introduced into it. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) had stated that it was the Birmingham Political Union and the Liberation Society which had produced and sustained the church-rate agitation throughout the country. He did not know whether he should shock the right hon. and learned Gentleman or not by making the avowal, but he could only say that in 1831 he was a Member of the Birmingham Political Union, and he was at that moment a Member of the Liberation Society. He would take upon himself to say that the Birmingham Political Union never interfered with the question of church rates at all. The real cause of the agitation lay in the stringent measures which were taken to enforce them some years ago. The imprisonment of Messrs. Thorowgood and Baines called the attention of the public to the matter. The former was imprisoned in Chelmsford gaol for three years, and the Bishop of London would not release him till he had purged himself of his contempt of the spiritual court. The Member for Oxford at that time (Sir B. Inglis) would hardly believe that Mr. Thorowgood could be sincere and conscientious in the matter, but having gone down to Chelmsford gaol and convinced himself to the contrary, he came back to the House and stated that he believed the man's imprisonment to have been caused by a conscientious objection to the payment of church rates, and the consequence was, that a Bill was brought in to prevent people who refused to pay them having to purge themselves of their contempt of the spiritual court.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 226; Majority 9.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read 3°, and passed.

STOCK JOBBING BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill to repeal so much of the statute relating to stock jobbing as prevents persons selling and disposing of
  302
  stocks or other securities, of which they are not possessed. He did so in order to raise the question whether there should be a total or only a partial repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act. It was uncertain what the intentions of the Government, with respect to Sir John Barnard's Act, were, for they had given no less than three versions of what were their intentions upon the subject. The Secretary of the Treasury had stated that what Government desired to legalize were simply those transactions which were bonâ fide dealings in stock; but that seemed to be already sufficiently done by an Act of Parliament then in force, and passed in 1845. He desired to retain the principle of the Bill of 1845, the provisions of which were very stringent against gambling on a small scale, while he did not wish to relax those provisions of Sir John Barnard's Act which were directed against gambling on a large scale. The question he wished to raise must, he understood, be decided before the second reading of the Government Bill for the entire repeal of the Act in question, because, after it had reached that stage, it would not be competent to introduce a Bill for partial repeal. If his Bill were carried forward, the House would have before it two propositions, one for repealing the whole, and the other a portion of Sir John Barnard's Act, and the House would then be able to decide between them.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be the same as that of the Government in wishing to repeal Sir J. Barnard's Act. There was, therefore, no objection on the part of the Government to the first reading of the Bill.
  Leave given.
  Bill to repeal so much of the Statutes relating to Stock Jobbing as prevents persons selling and disposing of Stocks or other Securities of which they are not possessed, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BOVILL and Mr. MACAULAY.
  Bill presented and read 1°.

PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS.— (ASSESSED TAXES, & c.)

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. MACAULAYsaid, he wished to move for a Return from every Parliamentary city and borough in England and Wales, showing the total number of male persons in each who were charged to any of the assessed taxes, or to the income tax under schedule B and D respectively, for the year 1859–60; how many of such per-

  303
  sons were assessed to the poor's rate upon a gross rental of £20 and upwards; how many upon a like rental of £10 and under £20; how many on a like rental of £6 and under £10; how many under £6; and how many were not occupiers of tenements rated to the poor. They had already Returns of the total amount of direct taxation paid by each borough, but no return showing the number of persons by whom it was paid, or how many of them were on the registry, or were tenants or occupiers. He understood there would be some difficulty and expense in obtaining the Return; but the information would be so valuable that a little difficulty and expense ought not to stand in the way. These classes of taxpayers were very numerous in all large towns; and, when adding to the constituencies, they could not decently omit them.
  MR. LAINGsaid, the only difficulty in acceding to the proposition arose from the fact that the Return from the collectors of the Inland Revenue would occupy a considerable time, and the Revenue officers were not in possession of the poor-rate books or the registry. Still, the Government would not offer any opposition to the Return, believing the information important. Every effort would be made to obtain it as soon as practicable.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the Return would be perfectly fallacious; it would not identify the recipients of dividends from the Funds, shareholders in public companies, or those who received incomes from personal property. The Return would lead to most erroneous conclusions.
  MR. BOUVERIEcontended that the procuring of these Returns would involve a great amount of labour, and necessitate an expenditure of considerable magnitude. Moreover, such delay would necessarily take place that before they could be presented they would be practically useless. He spoke from experience when he stated that it was impossible ever to procure satisfactory Returns of this nature from unpaid officials.
  MR. MACAULAYexplained that he had no intention to ask for a Return of the names of shareholders in a company. All he wanted to obtain was a list of the persons who were actually visited by the tax-gatherer, from which a comparison could easily be made with the rate-books by experienced persons.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDthought that the Return would involve very con-
  304
  siderable difficulty and expense, and that it would not be satisfactory when made.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) had spoken as the representative of the department which had more immediate cognizance of the matters referred to in this Return, his opposition to the Motion would rest on intelligible grounds; but, as the Government had intimated no reluctance to the ordering of these Returns, he thought the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat uncalled for. No objection whatever had been made on the question of church rates to the collection of information which was procured by unpaid officers; and even if a trifling expense were now incurred by the same course, he did not think the country would be deterred by that consideration from obtaining the fullest possible intelligence with respect to the probable results of the great change which was to be made in the national institutions.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think it is clear that the production of the Return which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called for will be attended with much difficulty and with a considerable lapse of time; and it is possible, also, that when it is produced it will, to a certain degree, be imperfect for the purpose for which it is required. At the same time, on a subject of this nature, and when the information is considered to be desirable in reference to the very important measure which is under the consideration of Parliament, I think the House will not be disposed to object to the production of these Returns.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, great trouble would be entailed on the parochial officers in preparing the required information, and the House would probably not refuse, under the circumstances, to sanction a moderate claim for expenses, if such should be preferred.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for "Return, for every Parliamentary City and Borough in England and Wales, showing,—

  1. The total number of male persons in each who were charged to any of the Assessed Taxes, or to the Income Tax, under Schedules B and D respectively, for the year 1859–60;

  2. How many of such persons were assessed to the Poor's Rate upon a gross rental of £20 and upwards;

  3. How many upon a like rental of £10 and under £20;

  4. How many on a like rental of £6 and under £10;

  5. How many under £6;

  6. And how many were not occupiers of tenements rated to the Poor.

JEWS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEmoved the Third Reading of this Bill.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he objected to its being proceeded with at such an advanced hour (twenty minutes to one o'clock).
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he understood from the Colleague of the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was not to be further opposed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexplained that, in deference to the opinions of the right hon. Members for Oxfordshire and Cambridge, he had determined not to offer any opposition to the Motion for the Third Reading, and therefore he hoped his hon. Colleague would withdraw his also.
  Motion agreed to. Bill read 3° and passed.
  House adjourned, at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.