Commons Sitting of 22 June 1865

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Henry William Eaton, esquire, for Coventry.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—On Leeds Bankruptcy Court [No. 397]; Mines [No. 398]; Thames River [No. 399].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Turnpike Acts Continuance.
Second Reading—Clerical Subscription [Lords'] [199]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Indemnity [234]; Expiring Laws Continuance*[235]; Compound Spirits Warehousing*[233].
Committee—Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) [133]; Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit*(re-comm.) [228]; County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction [Lords'] [150]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 5)*[209]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements*[225]; Turnpike Acts Continuance [227].
Report—Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) [133]; Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit*(re-comm.) [228]; County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction [Lords] [150].

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL AND THE AUDIT OFFICE.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES DOUGLASsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be the system
628
throughout the Civil Service that two persons are selected by the Treasury, in each office, to make out the List of Payments to be made, which Lists are sent to the Paymaster General, who pays them without question if signed by the officers duly appointed to sign, and the Audit Office passes the accounts (of some offices) in the accounts of the Paymaster General? Whether those officers in the several Departments do not substantially draw cheques on the Paymaster General, as the Treasury banker, which are honoured by him, and passed by the Audit Office as a matter of course? Who audits the accounts of the drawers of cheques? What securities are there against the drawing of cheques contrary to Treasury authority, and possibly not for the Public Service, or against fraud, except the integrity of the drawers of cheques? And is there any, and what, security for the discovery of fraud by an audit of the accounts in the account of the Paymaster General?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the Question of his hon. Friend did not permit of being answered in that House. It could only be answered by explanations in detail of all the arrangements connected with the drawing of money and the audit of accounts in all the Departments of the public service; and such an explanation, if given by word of mouth only, would not be intelligible to the House. He would, however, give his hon. Friend a partial answer. He should be happy to give him an opportunity of considering the subject more at large, leaving it to him to determine how fur he would prosecute his investigations; for he could not imagine a more legitimate subject of inquiry than that with which his hon. Friend proposed to charge himself. He believed he should be right in saying that it was not the fact that any one system prevailed throughout the whole of the Civil Service. The payments, the accounts, the audits, of the different Departments, were differently regulated; in some cases by precise and stringent provisions of Acts of Parliament, and in others by the authority of the Department itself. In the case of the Navy, an Act of William IV. provided that an account should be made out, signed by the Accountant General of the Navy, and countersigned in the manner the Lords of the Admiralty should from time to time direct. In this instance, therefore, no question of selection by the Treasury could

629
arise at all. In the same manner orders for the payment of money issued by the War Office were signed and countersigned; but in that case there must be the approval of the Treasury. Then the regulations of the Civil Departments varied from those of the Admiralty and the War Office, and the names of the officers who were charged with the responsibility of signing and countersigning were submitted for approval to the Treasury. Whether in all cases there were two, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not know, but he thought it very possible that this might be the general rule, and he saw nothing unreasonable in the plan so devised. Undoubtedly these officers would draw upon the Paymaster General, and their drafts would have the effect of cheques upon the Paymaster General. Then, his hon. Friend asked who audited the accounts, and also asked what security there was against fraud, except the integrity of the drawers? Well, the Departments had their regulations upon this subject, and the principal security against fraud or negligence was the use of a counter signature. That might be described to be the system in which all our payments were regulated; and he believed that in the main it was a good system. It was obvious that in any system of checks there must be an end to it somewhere, and somebody there must be from whose default of duty the public, must suffer. There must be a limit to the multiplication of checks; and it should be borne in mind that increased security was by no means in proportion to the number of persons discharging their duty, or seeing that it was discharged by others.

NAVY—LOSS OF THE "BOMBAY."

  QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, in rising to put the Questions, of which he had given notice, to the Secretary of the Admiralty in connection with the loss of the Bombay, he must preface them by stating that that vessel left Monte Video for practice, and having sailed about fifteen miles, she placed one target for that purpose. About 3.30 the fire-bell rang, the mainmast fell at 4.15, and the foremast went at 5.5; the magazine exploded about 8.25, and ninety-two souls perished, not by fire, but by drowning, out of a crew of 620
  630
  men, and two officers were lost, neither being able to swim. He held in his hand a copy of a letter written by Lieutenant Carr, who was in the vessel, and in which he said—
  "I am sure no man who could swim need have lost his life that day; those who could not were too stupified to help themselves. Though a deal of gear was thrown overboard that would have floated, many, many poor wretches (marines) I saw who could not swim jumping overboard, boots, coats, and all. I saw all this from the quarter-deck netting. Had the breeze been as strong as it was an hour before, half those saved would have been lost. Want of powers of swimming was the cause of their deaths. We had no men in their beds; luckily all the sick were saved, or rather saved themselves."
  In the early part of the present year, he might add, twenty cadets of the mercantile marine were out sailing in the river, when the boat was upset, and ten of them were drowned. Under those circumstances, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If there was any special, Report made to the Lords of the Admiralty by the Admiral of the station as to the loss of ninety-two Sailors and Marines from the burning of Her Majesty's ship Bombay off Monte Video, on the 14th of last December; if he can state the number of Marines and Sailors who were drowned separately, and the length of time that elapsed from the first breaking out of the fire to the sinking of the ship; if there were any patent Lifebelts on board; and, if so, if they were used? If there is any order, rule, or system in the Navy or the Marine Corps under which the recruits or men are taught to swim, and if the boys in the service are instructed in the art of swimming; and how many the crew of Her Majesty's ship Bombay were on the 14th of December?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET,in reply, stated that the cadets on board the Worcester were not under the control of the Admiralty, and that the death from drowning of the ten boys at Erith, however much it was to be regretted, could not be laid at the door of that Department. In answer to the questions which had reference to the loss of the Bombay, he had to inform the hon. Gentleman that the number of those who perished on that occasion amounted in all to ninety-one, including two officers, forty-seven seamen, eight boys, and thirty-four marines. On board all our training ships distinct orders were issued by the Admiralty to the effect that all the boys should be taught to swim. Occasion-

  631
  ally it was reported that some boys were so nervous that they could not be taught, and it was curious that one of the boys who was drowned in the case of the Bombay was a boy who had been brought up on board the Excellent, but who could never learn the art of swimming. He would not trouble the House by entering into the details of the regulations on the subject which had been laid down by the Admiralty for the boys in our training ships as well as for recruits in the marine barracks, but he could assure the hon Gentleman that they were very stringent, and that additional instructions had been issued that they should not be neglected. With regard to life-belts, various proposals had been made to the Admiralty, and had been tried. The men had in some instances been supplied with cork beds with the view of saving life in the event of the occurrence of any disaster, but it was found they objected altogether to the use of those beds. There were at present life-belts of a very simple construction in use in the Channel fleet on trial, and if the report of them was favourable they would be generally used. There were also life-belts at our Coastguard stations, and the usual life-buoys on board every ship. The total number of men on board the Bombay had been 641, of whom, as already stated, ninety-one were lost. The length of time between the discovery of the fire and the blowing up of the ship he found was exactly four hours and three quarters. He should be happy to give further information if any were possessed by the Admiralty, but it had never been satisfactorily ascertained how the fire originated, and all the other facts had been laid before the public.
  MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he wished to add that last year the Holy head lifeboat went out with fifteen men on board; the boat was upset, but, all having on the lifebelts supplied by the Royal Humane Society, they were picked up by a steamer with the exception of one man, and it was supposed that he had been struck by a spar.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that he might reply to that portion of the Question which the noble Lord had not been able to answer. Boys on board the Worcester were taught to swim, and since the accident occurred some time ago a rule had been made that those boys who could not swim should not be allowed to go out in sailing-boats.

EPISCOPAL RESIDENCE AT BRISTOL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have received any communications from the City of Bristol, or whether their attention has been directed to any communications made by the City of Bristol to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners respecting the claim made for the restoration of an Episcopal Residence at Bristol; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which the union between the Sees of Bristol and Gloucester was effected, and whether he is of opinion that the sale of the residence purchased for Bishop Monk, in great part with money raised by taxation of the inhabitants of Bristol, and the application of the proceeds to the erection of the Episcopal Palace at Gloucester, without providing any substituted residence at Bristol, is in accordance with the spirit of the terms on which the union was made; and whether there will be any objection to produce any Correspondence which has taken place on the object? He would omit the clause "in great part with money raised by taxation of the inhabitants of Bristol," because the fact was that the City of Bristol was taxed to replace the Episcopal Residence in consequence of its destruction in the time of the Reform Bill riots, and its retention might lead to misapprehension.
  SIR GEORGE GREY,in reply, said, he was not aware that any communication had been received from Bristol by Her Majesty's Government, and certainly his attention had not been directed to any communication made respecting the claim for the restoration of the Episcopal Residence. He was generally aware of the circumstances under which the union of the Sees was effected, but not sufficiently to express an opinion as to whether the sale of the residence purchased for Bishop Monk, and the application of the proceeds to the erection of the Episcopal Palace at Gloucester, without providing any substituted residence at Bristol, was in accordance with the spirit of the terms on which the union was made. But, on inquiry at the Ecclesiastical Commission Office, he found that there had been a Correspondence, and he believed that there would be no objection to its production.

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had complied with the requisition of the Board of Trade, as suggested in the report of Messrs. Coode and Rawlinson, that they should draw larger quantities of material for the Thames Embankment from the bed of the river; and, if not, what course he proposed to take in the matter?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied, that the Board of Trade had been in communication with the Metropolitan Board of Works on the subject, and the Board of Works passed a Resolution on Monday last, which he would read—
  "That so long as the material raised from the river opposite the embankment works continues to be, in the opinion of the engineer, suitable for the purposes of the embankment, the engineer be instructed to allow no other material to come on to the embankment works, except for the backing of the embankment wall, the cross dams, the material required for puddling, and other necessary purposes."
  He had to-day received a private communication that the Metropolitan Board of Works were now acting on the spirit of that Resolution, and that the referees, to whom the question of the suitableness of the material was referred, had reported that the material dredged out of the river was, in the main, fit to be used in filling in the embankment.

SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.—QUESTION.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to give an answer to the application made to him by a deputation which waited upon him some time since, with regard to affording the clerks in the several Government offices the opportunity of obtaining a half-holiday on Saturday afternoons?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think, Sir, the subject of that application is one which is very deserving of consideration. There may be some offices in which the whole of the Department could not be allowed to have a half-holiday. The Secretary to the Treasury is in communication with the officers of the different Departments in order to see how far a half-holiday on Saturday afternoons can be made consistent with the requirements of
634
the public service. I have no doubt that a great number of the Departments can allow a half-holiday.

CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL (Lords)

  [BILL 199.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, the object of this Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed at the beginning of 1864 to consider and revise the various forms of subscription and declarations required to be taken by the clergy of the Established Church. This subject of Clerical Subscription is one that has recently occupied a good deal of public attention and occasioned much discussion. Motions have have been made in both Houses of Parliament on the matter. In the House of Lords two or three years ago a Bill was proposed, the object of which was to repeal so much of the Act of Uniformity as required a declaration to be made of unfeigned assent and consent to everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer. In 1863 my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) made a Motion of a more general character, asking the House to declare it expedient that the terms of clerical subscription should be relaxed. The Government met that Motion, not with a direct negative, but by the Previous Question, and that course, I think, was sanctioned by the general acquiescence of the House. They felt that in what was urged by my hon. Friend as to the number and complexity of the various forms of subscription required by law from the clergy, there was considerable force; they were not prepared to say that no alteration should take place; but, at the same time, they felt it would be inexpedient for the House to make any general declaration that the forms of subscription should be relaxed without being prepared with a specific proposal as to the forms of subscription that ought to be substituted. They also felt that before any specific alteration was proposed it was desirable that the whole subject should be considered and fully inquired into by a Commission appointed by the Crown. In conformity with that opinion Her Majesty was advised to issue a Royal Commission to consider and revise the various forms of subscription and declaration to be made by the clergy of the Church of England and Ireland on their appointment, admission,

  635
  or induction to any benefice or office; and to report their opinion how far they might be altered consistently with due security for the declarant adherence of the clergy to the doctrines and ritual of the Church. The principle of subscription was not at all in question. It was assumed that the Church had a right to require from those who desired to enter the ranks of her clergy that they should publicly declare their general agreement with the doctrines of the Church and their readiness to conform to her ritual. The object of the Commission was to see how far those objections might be removed which were entertained to the great variety and complexity of the forms of subscription and declarations from time to time framed, and now by law required. In selecting the Members to constitute that Commission, it was the object of the Government that it should be so composed as to command the general confidence of members of the Established Church, and for that purpose they felt it desirable that it should be partly composed of clerical and partly of lay Members of the Church. They were also anxiou3 that it should comprise Members—I will not say of different parties in the Church—but of the different phase of opinion that we know are entertained within the limits of the Church, by persons equally attached to her doctrines and formularies. And I am happy to believe that we succeeded in attaining that object. The four archbishops of the Established Church were placed on that Commission, together with several of its bishops and clergy, occupying different grades in the Church, and with them were associated twelve laymen, the Commission being presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. To the patience, care, time, and attention bestowed on this important subject by the Commission we are indebted for the valuable report presented to Her Majesty, and by Her Majesty's commands laid some time since on the table of this House. I am happy to say that the recommendations of that report were unanimously agreed to by the Members of the Commission—in fact the only name that is not found among the signatures to the report is that of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote), and I am informed that the only reason he did not sign was because he was absent from the country, and at the time suffering from severe indisposition. We are all happy to gee him
  636
  among us again, and I believe it is the intention of my hon. Friend to confirm my statement as to his entire concurrence in the report of the Commission. The Report, after setting forth the different forms of subscription and declarations now made by the clergy, and the laws under which these are required, points out some material differences existing between the subscription and declarations made by the clergy in England and those made by the clergy of the Irish branch of the Established Church. After having pointed out this, the first recommendation is that those distinctions should be removed, and that the same declarations which are required to be taken by the clergy of this country, should also be taken by the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. Their next recommendation—the most important one, and, indeed, the main object of the Bill—is that on every occasion on which a subscription or declaration is required to be made in England or Ireland, with reference to the Articles of Religion or the Book of Common Prayer, the existing subscriptions or declarations, having reference to the doctrines and liturgy of the Church, should be discontinued; and that the following declaration should be substituted for them—
  "I, A. B., do solemnly make the following declaration. I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer, and the ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons. I believe the doctrine of the United Church of England and Ireland as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of Cod, and in public prayer and administration of the Sacraments, I will use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority."
  With reference to these last words, they point to the power exercised by the Queen in Council of ordering special prayers for occasions of public thanksgiving or calamity, or such other like occasions. The other recommendations contained in the Report have reference to the oaths taken by the clergy. I need not go into them in detail, but they refer to the time at which these oaths are to be taken, and the substitution of a declaration in certain cases for these oaths. The main recommendation, substituting for the present system a general declaration of assent to the doctrines of the Church, and a willingness to conform to its ritual was not only unanimously agreed to by the Commission, but has also met with the general concurrence of other members of the Established

  637
  Church both clerical and lay, who had had the opportunity of giving consideration to the subject. The Convocations both of Canterbury and York have signified their concurrence in the most formal manner in these recommendations, and although there is no general assembly of the Church in Ireland capable of expressing its concurrence in an equally formal manner, yet the Irish branch of the Established Church was fully represented on the Commission, the two Archbishops having signed the Report in common with the other Commissioners, The Bill also comes down to us with the unanimous concurrence of the House of Lords. There is a great weight of authority, therefore, in favour of this Bill, and I believe it is calculated to confer a great and essential benefit upon the Established Church. I will just allude to the notice of Amendments given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside). In the principle of those Amendments I entirely concur, and if they are adopted they will substantially restore the Bill to the form in which it was originally proposed by the Government. They will correct what I conceive to be a mistake which has been committed by the other House in regard to the old, obsolete oath of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration required to be taken by the Act of William and Mary, instead of the consolidated oath of 21 &c 22 of Victoria, which is the oath taken by the clergy of the Church in Ireland, although it is not at present exacted from the clergy of the Church in England. If that alteration should be made in the Bill, and if it should be assented to by the other House of Parliament, it will be, I think, an essential improvement. It is most satisfactory to know that this Bill has met with such universal concurrence, and I will only state my confident belief that if these recommendations are adopted, the new form of declaration will essentially secure the object which we all have in view—namely, that there should be a declared agreement on the part of those who enter the Church with the doctrines of the Church, and an avowal of their intention to conform to the liturgy and ritual of the Church. On the other hand, the adoption of these recommendations will remove objections of a serious character, founded upon the variety of subscriptions and declarations now required, and the use of terms on which very
  638
  different interpretations are placed by men of great authority. These objections have had a tendency to prevent the entrance into the Church of men of the highest character and of the most undoubted attachment to the Church, and who were fitted to shed lustre upon the Establishment, and to discharge with the greatest advantage the high duties of its Ministers. I move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir George Grey.)
  MR. WHITESIDE: Sir, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the value and utility of this Bill. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government deserve the thanks of the House for the manner in which the Commission was constituted which was empowered to inquire into this very delicate and important subject. I have also personally to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous manner in which he has considered the Amendments which I have proposed, and I am entirely content with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with them. To obtain simplicity and uniformity in the Church, and at the same time to make the Bill acceptable to the class of persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred is a great gain to the Church. The closing words of the Commission, to which the hon. Baronet has alluded, deserve the notice of the House. They are—
  "These recommendations we now humbly offer to your Majesty. To carry them into effect some alterations must be made in the canons of the Church, and some in the statutes of the realm. We trust that our proposals will be willingly accepted both by the Church and by the State."
  These are judicious suggestions, because they point to an alteration of the canons of the Church and the effect to be given to these alterations by the Legislature. How were the Articles of the Church originally prepared and confirmed? How is that matter stated in the Book of Common Prayer? It is recited that by the General Synod of the Church, acting, no doubt, with the licence of the Crown, these Articles were recommended to the Crown and adopted by the Crown, and the declaration prefixed to them in the Book of Common Prayer points to the Convocation of the Church as the proper tribunal to consider such questions, and says that whenever it is

  639
  necessary to consider matters of the same nature the same high authority should be summoned again to recommend to the Crown such alterations as the wisdom of Convocation might suggest. The subsequent ratification of these Articles in the time of Elizabeth points to Convocation again as the assembly which is to express its opinion on these subjects. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman more than once during the last ten days for the document, or a copy of it, which he in official language said was in course of preparation. It is what is called a licence to be granted to the Convocation of Canterbury or York, or either of them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's labours are so weighty that he has been unable to prepare that difficult and elaborate paper. The more I press the right hon. Gentleman for the paper the more reluctant he appears to be to present it, but now that Parliament is about to be dissolved, I suppose it will be laid on the table of the House. I have a serious question to ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this point. I do not complain of the heads of the Church in England being consulted. It was the duty of the Government to consult them. I do not complain of the Convocation of the Church being called upon to give its assent to what is originated, particularly when the Crown can suggest the subject to be discussed, and afterwards affirm it by its license. Nothing can be more temperate or more respectful than to give that power to the Church. But I do not comprehend the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in issuing a paper which would call upon Convocation to give a political "Amen" to an Act of Parliament that had been already passed. In relation, therefore, to the question as touching the Irish branch of the Church, I beg to refer to a protest which has been laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament, and of which I have procured a copy. Now, let me say, first, that I support the Bill cordially, and I think the Amendments which I propose to introduce will make it an excellent measure. But I am speaking now of the manner in which the Convocation of England are asked to give their opinion, and of the abrupt and somewhat contumelious style in which the right hon. Baronet has snuffed out the Convocation of Ireland. The protest drawn up by certain eminent members of the Irish episcopal body was in these terms—
  640
  "Dissentient:—

  "1. Because that, while agreeing that it is expedient to simplify and assimilate the Laws of Clerical Subscription in all the Provinces of the United Church of England and Ireland, and while acquiescing in the general Reasonableness of the Recommendations made in the Report of the Royal Commissioners upon which this Bill is founded, we deem it inconsistent with the ancient Customs of this Church and Realm that in a Spiritual Matter so nearly affecting the whole Body of the Clergy, Canons enacted with the Assent of the Crown, by the Bishops and Clergy synodically assembled, should be altered or annulled without a Royal Licence previously given to them to re-consider and alter those Canons.

  "2. Because the Course taken in the bringing in and passing this Bill, which alters, without the Concurrence of all the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England and Ireland synodically assembled, Canons of the Church respecting Clerical Subscription as a Condition of Admission into Holy Orders, is regarded by us as not only without adequate Precedent, but without sufficient Ground of general Expediency.

  "3. Because we think that the passing of this Bill, with the Concurrence of the English, but without the Concurrence of the Irish Bishops and Clergy synodically convened, may appear prejudicial to their undoubted Right to a full Participation in the Common Privileges of the Spirituality of the United Church, a Right declared by the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland to be an essential and fundamental Part of the Union of those Kingdoms."

  I submit that it would he a very difficult thing, even for a Gentleman so well informed as the right hon. Baronet, to answer satisfactorily the reasons contained in that Protest. I beg now to draw attention to a petition which I have had the honour to present from the University of Dublin, and which bears the seal of the University. It states a legal difficulty upon which I should like to have the opinion of the Attorney General. What is the meaning and what can be the effect of this licence to be granted to the Convocation of Canterbury or York, or both, to deal with an Act of Parliament after the Act of Parliament has passed? It is only giving them license to say "Amen" to the Act of Parliament, and that is a thing the advantage of which I cannot comprehend. To give the Convocation of the English branch of the Church by licence a right to consider the subject matter of a canon was becoming; but the granting of such a licence as this is not very respectful to Convocation, and has no sense of significance in regard to the canons of the Church. The petition of the provost, fellows, and scholars of the University of Dublin states—

  641
  "That the Clerical Subscription Bill now before Parliament affects the interests of the Irish branch of the Church in the same degree as it affects the interests of the English branch, and the same reasons which have rendered it desirable to give permission to the provinces of Canterbury and York to express their opinion as to any alteration of their canons and obligations apply with equal force to the Irish provinces of the United Church.
  "That your petitioners do not wish to oppose the progress of the aforesaid Bill, but they pray that your honourable House would be pleased to devise in your wisdom such measures as will hereafter give to the Irish clergy a power of expressing their opinion, in conjunction with the English clergy, on matters affecting the common interest of the United Church, and especially that you will preserve in its integrity the union of the Churches of England and Ireland."
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman his authority for stating that there is nobody known to the law in Ireland which could express its opinion on the question, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a matter which occurred in the time of the Bishop of Llandaff, just prior to the union, when the necessity of introducing certain securities for the Church of Ireland was being discussed. In the memoirs of the Bishop of Llandaff there appears a correspondence between him and the Archbishop of Canterbury as to whether it would he wise or politic to introduce into the Act of Union a clause or two clauses pointing out the manner in which, after the passing of the measure, Convocation should be assembled. Convocation in Ireland had met from time to time, and Went-worth Lord Strafford drew the Article which identified the doctrine and discipline of the two Churches of England and Ireland. The Convocation of Ireland lay dormant for a time, as the Convocation of England had done for eighty years, but that was no proof of its non-existence. The Act of 1793 (33 Geo. III., c. 29), an Act to prevent the meeting of unlawful assemblies, says—
  "Save and except the knights, citizens, and burgesses elected to serve in the Parliament thereof, and save and except the Houses of Convocation duly summoned by the King's writ."
  Now, what occurred prior to the Union on the subject? It seems that a communication had been addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject, and he, being puzzled, consulted the Bishop of Llandaff, who thought himself an ill-used Prelate because he was not made an archbishop. He seemed to have been rather liberal in his views. The Bishop of Llandaff says—
  642
  "The Archbishop of Canterbury bad asked my opinion relative to the Church of Ireland, and I sent to him the following letter, dated 5th March, 1860:—'My Lord Archbishop—I think the Act of Parliament proposed by the Archbishop of Cashel and Dr. Duignan to be wholly unnecessary, but I approve of the addition to the 5th Article suggested by the Lord Lieutenant (an addition relative la the mode in which Convocation was to be summoned). I approve, however, of this addition merely as it may tend to conciliate those who seem to entertain apprehensions for the security of the Irish Church, and not as thinking it in any degree requisite for that end, which is in no degree endangered by the union. A united Convocation will sufficiently unite both the Churches of England and Ireland at present and as to all future changes, if it should be ever thought expedient to make any; and, as to identification, the Churches are at present identified, not only in the leading principles of Protestantism and Episcopacy, but in doctrine, discipline, and worship. Above all things, I wish the Church of England to forbear affecting a superiority over that of Ireland, by attempting to obtain an appellate jurisdiction to the see of Canterbury."
  Now, that is a recommendation which I hope the English branch of the United Church of England and Ireland will take to heart. We in Ireland cannot submit to be snuffed out so unceremoniously as the right hon. Baronet proposes to snuff us out. I beg now to call attention to some correspondence of the late Primate of Ireland, in order to correct an observation made in another place by Earl Granville, who stated that the late Primate of Ireland was unfavourable to Convocation. In a certain sense Earl Granville was right, in another sense he was wrong. The late Primate was opposed to a provincial Convocation; for he was always of opinion that the only Convocation which would be of any worth would be the Convocation pointed out by the Treaty of Union, intended by Mr. Pitt, and following as the necessary consequence from the Great Compact itself. But to pass to another matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman been well advised by his lawyers when he said that the Queen could order prayers without the consent of the Church? Did I understand him to say that? I believe that it is a very doubtful matter, though I have no doubt at all that no one would be more likely to make such an order in a pious spirit, or to direct what is right. But would it be binding on each branch of the Church? Who first devised the forms of prayer? The Church is not a Parliamentary engine, to be used or laid aside by the Minister of the day. In due submission to the Crown, as the supreme Governor of the Realm, it has rights of its own, and I do not think the House will be

  643
  disposed to deprive it of that ancient authority. There is another question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of a general canon—I am not speaking of a provincial regulation—can that general canon, establishing a general principle, and sanctioned in a general synod of the Church, be got rid of by the decision of one province of York or Canterbury? A very serious question arises when you wish to make improvements and reforms—and I admit that reforms may properly be made—namely, what is the authority by which they can be carried out? I admit that the laity are not bound by canons which may bind the clergy; but quoad the Church the canons are binding, and can the province of York or Canterbury pass a canon binding on the whole Church? Clearly not I think. Take the canon relating to sponsors, which orders that parents ought not to be sponsors for their own children, which is a general canon of the whole Church—does the right hon. Gentleman say that the sanction of a general synod would not be necessary to change the 29th canon? Could it be got rid of by an Order in Council, or by a decision of one branch, either of York or Canterbury? It is right to consider proposals of reform and improvement, and I admit that the canons require reform and improvement; but what is the lawful authority by which these improvements can be effected? When it was proposed to alter the 29 th canon, relating to sponsors, the Primate and Bishops of Ireland addressed a memorial to Her Majesty, in which they said that—
  "The Convocation of the province of Canterbury having applied for and obtained your Majesty's licence for the purpose, has repealed the 29th canon, and in place thereof enacted a new canon, which now awaits your Majesty's sanction."
  And that "the convocation of York has likewise asked for and received a licence for the same purpose." They added that they understood that steps were taken by the province of Canterbury to frame new forms of prayer for thanksgiving after harvest, and for other occasions, and to regulate discipline; and they added—
  "A new rule of sponsorship, new forms of prayer, and a new law of discipline, if introduced in the province of Canterbury alone, or in the provinces of Canterbury and York, to the exclusion of the Irish provinces, would disturb the uniformity of the Church and violate the spirit of the Act of Union. In such grave matters we conceive that the whole united Church is con-
  644
  cerned and that, in such matters, the advice, not of one or two provincial synods only should be taken, but of a general synod of the United Church of England and Ireland."
  This was in July, 1861, and the usual formal acknowledgment of its receipt was forwarded, but it appeared then to have been forgotten by the right hon. Gentleman. The fact was, the right hon. Gentleman could not answer it, and the alteration of the 29th canon was not proceeded with, which shows that the memorial was founded in reason. In February, 1862, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the name of the Convocation of his province, acting towards the Irish Church with that kindness and consideration and brotherly feeling which from such men might be expected, wrote to the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, communicating what had been done to obtain the authorization of a special form of thanksgiving for harvest, and to—
  "Request their Graces to take such steps as to them may seem expedient to obtain the advice and concurrence of their branch of the United Church;"
  forgetful that there was no mode of obtaining that concurrence. In June, 1862, the right hon. Baronet gave an answer to the Primate as follows:—
  "As your Grace has expressed a desire to know Her Majesty's decision, Her Majesty's Government have not felt it to be their duty to advise Her Majesty to convene a general synod of the United Church of England and Ireland. They believe that no such synod ever was convened, and they are not aware that, if convened, it would have any legal power."
  I should like to ask the Attorney General whether, if there were such a synod, he holds that it would have no legal power? What power has the Convocation now assembled? If it be assembled by an act of courtesy, why not ask the other branches of the same Church also to assemble? If it be unlawful, why allow it to assemble at all? I should like also to ask the Attorney General what rights he considers the Irish Church has under the Act of Union? At that important epoch the Irish House of Commons passed a Resolution—
  "That the Churches of England and Ireland shall be united into one Church, and the archbishops, priests, &c, of the Churches of England and Ireland shall from time to time be summoned to and entitled to sit in convocation of the United Church in the same manner as now established in the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be preserved as now by law established for the Church of England."

  645
  That was the proposal of Lord Cornwallis, and the Government referred to by the Bishop of Llandaff and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as I have before mentioned. That was amended in the House of Lords, leaving it that—
  "When his Majesty shall summon a Convocation of the Irish clergy they shall be summoned to sit in such Convocation of the United Church."
  That article was laid on the table of the English House of Commons by Mr. Pitt on the 21st of April; but when the Bill was in Committee Mr. Pitt said—
  "It was judged better to omit the insertion of any provisional article respecting the Convocation until the union actually took place, more particularly as his Majesty, as the head of both Churches, had the power to call such a Convocation when he pleased."
  And the clause proposed was struck out on that ground with the consent of the Irish Parliament; but the union of the two Churches was an essential part of the Act of Union. As a question of law, then, I ask again, is it possible for any other Convocation now to sit for the purpose of altering a general canon of the United Church save and except a Convocation in which the whole of that Church is represented? Three learned persons in this country were asked for their opinion on this question. The opinion was to the effect that if a Bill were to be introduced to alter a canon, the approval of the prelates and clergy of the United Church should be procured. If Convocation be required for the purpose of altering or amending the law of the Church, the policy and the legality are equally clear of allowing the Church authorities in Ireland an opportunity of joining in that Convocation. Those authorities give a hearty assent to the wise and tolerant measure now recommended to the House. I would suggest to the Lord Chancellor to consider what Convocation could be assembled to pass a canon binding on the whole Church except the Convocation referred to in the Act of Union as originally drawn For my part, I am always surprised to hear Gentleman say that they have a prejudice against Convocation, and I do not think that to be a very tolerant feeling. Every branch of the Christian Church is allowed to assemble to make regulations for the management of its own body, and I do not believe that, if the United Church of England and Ireland, which has a great history, a magnificent literature, and functions which she has discharged faithfully and well, were allowed in like manner to assemble, the
  646
  heads of the Church would run counter to the sense of the nation or to the spirit of the Parliament.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he certainly would not venture to touch on the question as to the claims of the Convocation of the United Church to be heard on this matter, and he would not have risen at all to address the House were it not that he had regretted to observe that the importance of the changes with regard to the tests imposed on the clergy that had been proposed by the Commission which sat last year, and which were embodied in the Bill before them, had been depreciated in some quarters, as if, after all, those tests would remain about as stringent as they had been before. Now, he admitted that the change did not go so far in the way of relaxation as be could himself have wished; but, at the same time, he thought that it was one of great importance, and he also thought that the precedent now established was in itself of great value. It was a remarkable fact that a Commission, including eight archbishops and bishops, and several other dignitaries of the Church, should have unanimously agreed to sweep away the whole of the existing declarations required from the clergy, and to substitute a perfectly new form; and that this reform should also have been acquiesced in by Convocation; and he confidently maintained that the change thus unanimously agreed to was radical in its kind, though it might be too moderate in degree. The distinction between the proposed test and those now existing was this, that whereas at present those who took orders or promotion in the Church were obliged to declare that they accepted all and everything contained either in the Prayer Book or the Thirty-nine Articles, in future they would only affirm their acceptance of the doctrine of the Church contained in those books as a whole, without pledging themselves to a belief in every assertion and every dogma that the Church in those books might have laid down. Having been himself a Member of the Commission which proposed this change, he was in a position to affirm that it was the express intention of the Commission to relax the extravagant stringency of the existing tests; in other words, to make it possible for men to minister at the altars of the Church, although they might dissent from some part of her teaching, provided, however, they accepted it as a whole. To that last con-

  647
  dition they had undoubtedly felt bound to submit; in fact, it was plain that if such declarations were to be preserved at all, it was essential that those who took them should be called upon to declare virtually that they were bonâ fide members of the Church whose ministers they desired to be. So far they must all be agreed. They might differ on the question whether such tests should be applied at all; but if they were to be maintained it was manifest that their tenour must be of that kind. But what the Commission had aimed at was, on the one hand, to preserve such a general concurrence, but, on the other, to afford the clergy scope for some independence of thought within those wide bounds; and they certainly conceived that that end had in a cousiderable degree been attained in the proposal to which they had agreed. Look at the difference between these tests and the old ones. In the latter the intending clergyman declared that "willingly and ex animo" he gave his unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer, and also that he accepted "each and every" of the Thirty-nine Articles of religion. In these words, the stringency of which had been sedulously wrought up to the highest possible point, and in a variety of other phrases astonishingly numerous and complicated, the clergyman was so bound down, that if it had been possible for restrictions of that kind to produce their intended effect, there would have been a total extinction of anything like independence of thought within the borders of the Established Church. Now, it was of the greatest importance to observe that all those phrases which indicated that the subscriber declared his acceptance of every dogma of the Church had been swept away; and this had been done expressly and of forethought. As regarded the Thirty-nine Articles, the Commission had agreed to sweep away the words, "each and every of them;" implying, therefore, that the subscriber was only to take them as a whole, even though he might disagree with them here and there. The omission was of great importance. It was expressly intended, in order that the subscriber might feel that, provided he accepted the Articles as a whole, he was not to be excluded from the ministry because be might differ from certain portions of them. As regarded the Prayer Book the change was even still more marked; for, instead of
  648
  declaring his assent and consent to all and everything it contained, he only declared his assent to the Book of Prayer—that is to say, to the book as a whole; and his belief that the doctrine of the Church therein set forth was agreeable to the word of God. Observe, that he would not declare that the doctrines in the plural number, or that each and all of the doctrines were agreeable to the word of God, but only the doctrine of the Church in the singular number. It was expressly and unanimously agreed by the Commission that the word doctrine should be used in the singular number in order that it might be understood that it was the general teaching and not every part and parcel of that teaching to which assent was given. Having been in communication with the leaders of the party in the Church who were most anxious to relax the stringency of the tests imposed on the clergy, he was able to say that they regarded the proposed change as one of considerable value. And although it did not go as far as he himself and others could have wished, still its tendency went to this, that the subscriber would no longer bind himself to every particular doctrine, to every jot and tittle of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, but only to a general acceptance of that teaching. As far as this Bill tended to that result its value must be great. The time had arrived when it had become essential to allow great scope for independent thought to those who were to minister at the altars of the Church. No thoughtful man who watched the history of his own time could have failed to observe the mighty revolution that had been silently going forward in the national mind, and with accelerated rapidity during the last few years, in the growing resistance in men's minds to dogmatic religious teaching. Whether they regarded that movement with regret or with hope and satisfaction the fact could not be denied. Men of education and intelligence were more and more refusing to submit their minds to traditional teaching merely. They had grown more resolute in character and were more and more applying their own reason with force and boldness to the doctrines presented to them by their Church. This movement was doubtless looked upon by many with extravagant alarm. For his part he could not but believe that the faith of the people would become only the more high and noble under the invigorating influence of courageous thought. But whether that were so

  649
  or not, it was in vain to blind themselves to these facts; and those who wished to see the Church hold her own in this land and spreading further and deeper her holy and benign influence must rejoice if she were willing in any degree to adapt herself to the necessities of the time, and to the progress of human thought, instead of engaging in a short-sighted and futile resistance to the advancing tide. If, while the intelligent and energetic youth of the country was determined to use its reason freely, and to repudiate any attempt to enforce intellectual subjection, the Church should still persist in demanding from her ministers an absolute and uncompromising submission of mind to all and every portion of her dogmatic teaching, the inevitable result must be to sever the Church from the intellectual energy of the time, to hand over to feeble and narrow minds the high function of instructing the people in religious truth, and thus to weaken her power and degrade her character. It was in that sense and with that view that, two years ago, he had called the attention of that House to this subject for the first time; and he was persuaded that this measure would not only relieve many tender consciences from a cruel burden, but would tend to maintain the connection between the Established Church and the stirring intellect of the age.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, this was a subject of a grave and important nature, and it might have been supposed that the House would have been attended by a much larger number of Members, The hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) regretted that the alterations made by the Bill had not been carried to a greater extent. Now he (Mr. Briscoe), had paid some attention to the subject, and he was not surprised to find that the Archdeacon of Middlesex considered that this was one of the most important measures affecting the Church since the time of Henry VIII, When it was said that it had been unanimously approved by Convocation, it seemed to be forgotten that the Bishop of Lincoln had expressed his extreme regret at seeing the words "I do willingly and ex animo" altered into the feeble phrase "I do solemnly make the following declaration." The Bishop of Peterborough entirely agreed with the Bishop of Lincoln that it would be unwise to omit from the declaration the words "willingly and ex animo," which afforded a security for the Church. The hon. Mem-
  650
  ber for Maidstone said that the measure would relieve tender consciences; but did it, he asked, alter a single word in any of the services of the Church or in any of the Thirty-nine Articles? Were the clergy not still to be solemnly required to use those services and teach those Articles? How could it be said that they were to consent to the whole of the Prayer Book, but not to every part? The whole was made up of the different parts, and he was at a loss to understand how a man of candour could say that his conscience was relieved by that measure. As to the words "assent and consent," though some had contended that they were synonymous, he found from Webster's Dictionary that "assent" was only an agreement of the understanding to an abstract proposition, but that "consent" was an act of the will. For instance, "assent" was given by Her Majesty to all Acts of Partiament; but Her Majesty did not thereby consent to all that those Acts contained. She assented to do that without which all Acts of Parliament would be null and void. He thought it was evident that some difference of opinion did prevail among the members of the Royal Commission, and it had no doubt led to a compromise. He was aware that there were clergymen in the Church who entertained sincere objections to certain of its services, such as that—of the burial service—the visitation of the sick—the baptismal service, &c, and he would say let their consciences be relieved; but let it be done by a revision of the parts of the service to which they objected. The clergy would still be required to use these services, and he could not see how their consciences would be relieved by an alteration in the mode of taking the oath. Then he would ask whether the 20,000 clergymen were to make this new declaration, or was it to apply only to those who should be ordained after the passing of this Bill. He wished to know whether under this Bill existing clergymen were to be allowed to take the new form of subscription, in order that their conciences might be relieved, or whether its provisions would be applied only to a new class of clergymen. Were they to have two classes of clergymen, one of which would not be relieved from the conscientious scruples they entertained, while the other would be allowed to put what interpretation they chose on the Articles to which they objected? Grave as he thought the measure, he should not have ventured, as the hon. Member for

  651
  Maidstone had done, to call it a "radical change." He supposed that a difference of opinion had existed in the Commission, and that a compromise had been come to. But he had felt bound to make these few remarks on the second reading of so important a Bill, and he must say, in conclusion, that he would he glad if some means could be found for restoring to the declaration the words "willingly and ex animo."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he regarded the measure as an advance, although a small one, in the right direction, and as such it should have his most cordial assent. He wished to say a few words upon what had fallen from the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) in reference to the Irish Convocation. It certainly appeared to him that if it was necessary in any way to obtain the assent or concurrence of the bishops and clergy of the Established Church in England, the like course should also have been taken in regard to the Irish Church. As long as that strange anomaly, the Irish Established Church, existed, the same course ought to be pursued in respect to it in such matters as was pursued in respect to the English Church, and therefore he quite agreed in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. But he would ask the Attorney General for what purpose the assent of Convocation was required? The 9th Section of this Bill expressly enacted that no subscriptions or declarations other than those required by the Bill should be taken by any of the clergy after the passing of that Act. It appeared to him, therefore, that it was idle to ask Convocation to make a new canon on that subject, because if the canon passed by them differed from the Act it would be void—if only in the words of the Act it would be superfluous and unnecessary. The Convocation had appeared to feel the helplessness of their position, and instead of waiting for the Royal licence to make a new canon, had taken the discussion on the new subscription on application for a licence. He wished, therefore, to know whether the custom which had grown up in Convocation of discussing these matters without waiting for the Royal licence was a constitutional one. The usual course had been since the Act of Submission, commonly called the "Muzzling Act," to wait till the licence was given them before discussing any important matter connected with the Church. Perhaps he might
  652
  be allowed to quote on this point a few sentences from one of the greatest authorities on this subject—he meant Lathbury—who said—
  "From the preceding narrative it will be seen that the Convocation is assembled by the Royal writ, but that they are not properly an ecclesiastical synod until the licence for business is granted. It is merely the licence for business that is now wanting to permit the Convocation to transact any matters which the Crown might recommend or the circumstances of the Church require."
  Again—
  "The Convocation has not acted as a provincial synod for many years, because the Royal licence has not been granted. As soon as the licence is issued a power is given to the Convocation which it did not previously possess, though assembled by Royal writ. It is then a provincial synod, and competent to transact ecclesiastical affairs.
  "They are a Convocation by his writ of summons; but a council, properly speaking, they are not, nor can they legally act as such till they have obtained the King's licence so to do."
  He might add to this the authority of Lord Macaulay—an authority on constitutional questions of this kind of very great eminence. Lord Macaulay said—
  "The Convocation has, happily for our country, been so long utterly insignificant that till a recent period none but curious students cared to inquire how it was constituted. The law, as it had been interpreted during a long course of years, prohibited the Convocation from even deliberating on any ecclesiastical ordinance without a previous warrant from the Crown."
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) asked what objection that side of the House had to the meeting of Convocation. Now, for his own part, he certainly had no objection to any meeting of the clergy to discuss subjects, whether at Willis's Rooms, at Oxford, or in any other place. What he objected to was their meeting to discuss in Convocation under colour of legal authority, when they had none whatever. He objected to their claims to he considered as a necessary part of the Constitution, to the extent of their consent being necessary to the legislation of Parliament. For a great many years Convocation had been entirely silent. They had heard nothing of it, and he believed nothing had been done by the Ministers of the -Crown to recall it into existence. It had been called into existence by a curious process of spontaneous regeneration. He believed he was right in stating that there had been no authority given by the Crown for Convocation to meet and discuss any such matter, and it was there-

  653
  fore important the House should know why Government had submitted the new subscription for the assent of Convocation. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what objection they had to Convocation, and he could not do better than answer him from the words of the late Archbishop of Canterbury. In a debate on the revival of Convocation in the House of Lords in 1852 he said—
  "Between independent bodies of religionists and the Church of England no parallel can be established. They are not involved in the Constitution of the country. They may meet and deliberate and resolve without constituting that anomaly in Government an imperium in imperio. The debates which will be constantly occurring will rather tend to foment than to allay dissensions, to multiply rather than to prevent divisions."
  On the same occasion the late Archbishop of Dublin said—
  "He had never advocated the restoration of the Convocation as the governing body of the Church, because, besides other objections, he was of opinion that the government of the Church by the clergy could not, and should not, be tolerated in these days. The revival of Convocation, as it at present existed, or, indeed, any attempt to govern the Church by means of the clergy exclusively, he should think highly inexpedient and not a little unjust."
  What he objected to, as lying at the foundation of all these questions, was the notion that the Church of England consisted of the clergy only. The Church of England consisted mainly of the laity, and the clergy were only a portion of it [Mr. WHITESIDE: And the Prelates.] Well, the Prelates were also a portion of it; but the new doctrine put forward in Convocation was that the clergy only were, in fact, the Church of England. That doctrine had constantly been put forward in the debates which had recently taken place in Convocation on this subject. Considerable gratification had been expressed that the Government was ready to submit the matter to them. They did not, however, hear much of the Bill itself; there was little discussion on it but there was a strong expression of gratification that they were permitted to meet for the purpose of discussing it. He must be allowed to quote a few words from the speeches of two of the most eminent members of Convocation—Archdeacon Denison and Canon Wordsworth. Archdeacon Denison said—
  "Convocation is the Church of England by representation, and that Church is the primary institution of this country, around which all the others revolve and revert to for precedents of authority. I congratulate Convocation upon the
  654
  fact that our rulers have awakened out of that darkness which surrounded them with respect to its functions and position."
  Canon Wordsworth said—
  "We can only consider it as an acknowledgment from the highest personages in the land that the Convocation is a co-ordinate member and integral part of the English Constitution."
  For his part he rather agreed with the opinion of that very high authority, Mr. Fox, who, in the debate on the eligibility of Home Tooke, said—
  "He had trusted that this phantom of the Convocation had disappeared for ever, for he had long conceived all its powers to have expired. He could not refrain from quoting two lines of an English poet, where he introduced common sense as a queen governing the world by her sway:—
  "'Fair Common sense, while thou dost reign on earth,"
  The Convocation will not meet again.'
  He could not suffer himself for a moment to believe that the national character was so degraded as ever to submit to the revival of Convocation in our land."
  Before sitting down he could not help observing that it was unfortunate that the Report of the Royal Commission on which this Bill was founded did not give the discussion which must have preceded their Report. It would have been interesting to know by what process unanimity had been arrived at among so many of the clergy and others differing so widely on the important subjects discussed. It was unfortunate that they had not, in the Report on which the Bill was founded, some of the reasons in support of it. He made these observations because he knew that in some quarters considerable alarm was felt lest the new subscription should alter the legal status of the clergy, and that by a side wind the Bill might be used to set aside some recent decisions of the Privy Council. He did not himself believe that it would have that effect, but he regretted that the Report had not been more full, as it would have dissipated these alarms.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he was much interested in the discussion, as he considered the Bill to be a most extraordinary chapter in the history of England. Two centuries ago an Act was passed—the Uniformity Act—to make people pray and preach exactly a like, when a large number of the clergy seceded and were persecuted for so doing. The preamble of this Bill declared that the subscriptions, declarations, and oaths, required to be taken by the clergy were, by the enlightened opinion

  655
  of the country, deemed to be improper. Now, what would have been the result if that had been declared 200 years ago? How many Dissenters from the Church would there then have been? According to the census of 1851 the attendance at worship by Dissenters exceeded that of the members of the Church by 300,000 persons. He denied that they had shrunk from inquiry into that point in 1861. His hon. Friend (Mr. Baines) moved for the same test as in 1851, and it was refused by the House, or a larger majority of attendances might have been shown. As to Convocation, it was a great misfortune it was revived some years ago? He might ask what was Convocation? Was it for the province of Canterbury, or for York, or for Ireland, or for all three? That Convocation was an insult to the community of this country. The settlement of Church affairs existed, not in the Convocation of Canterbury, York, or Ireland, but in that House. Therefore it was that he insisted upon putting an end to that irresponsible body. If this Bill was intended to relieve tender consciences why did they not apply the axe to the root of the tree? Why did they not amend their Burial Service and their Form of Visitation of the Sick? The fact was, that they dared not undertake that work of revision. Why did they not proceed to alter the Church Catechism—a Catechism which the majority of the members of the Church of England itself did not embrace, and which parents shrank from having their children brought into contact with? It was undoubtedly true that the doctrinal articles of the Church of England were more consistently held by the great majority of the Nonconformists than by the Members of the Church itself. The members of the Church differed more from each other than the bulk of Nonconformists did from them. It was a satisfaction to him that the voluntary system had caused a revival of spiritual life within the Church of England itself. It was not disadvantageous to the country to have different denominations, and he believed that the Church had within it the power of a spiritual life which would be a blessing to I the world if duly reformed and dissociated from the State. The Nonconformists rejoiced in that fact; and what they opposed was those things which had a tendency to destroy that power and its usefulness. He would not offer opposition to the Bill. If it afforded relief to the tender consciences
  656
  of any part of the clergy, let them by all moans have it. He regretted that in the Church of England there was among some of the clergy a tendency to forms and ceremonies which might be honestly and consistently adopted by Roman Catholics, but which could not be honestly and consistently entertained by those who received Protestant pay from a Protestant Church.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir as several questions have been addressed to me in the course of this discussion, it would have been my duty to have taken part in this debate, if there had been no other reason to induce my rising. Before, however, answering those questions I will venture to make a few observations upon the general object and effect of this Bill, and, in doing so, I may express my belief that it would be very easy either to overstate or to understate its value and effect. If any man thinks it would be a good tiling to emancipate the clergy of the Church of England from the obligations which they are under, to adhere and conform loyally to the principles and the doctrines of the Church of which they are members, he certainly could not regard this Bill as in any way applying the axe to the root of the tree. Nor does it in any way alter the substance of the doctrine, discipline, or formularies of the Church. Still less does it aim at affording any encouragement to clergymen to belong to the Church, to take part in its ministry, and to share in its emoluments, without at the same time being loyal and conscientious members of that Church—an encouragement which, if offered, I could not but regard as immoral and demoralizing. What was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton) has been misunderstood. What my hon. Friend meant was, that the end the Bill was intended to accomplish was to relieve scrupulous consciences from a restraint which seemed to them to be imposed upon the exercise of that reasonable degree of liberty which was consistent with loyal adherence to the Church, and which there was reason to believe all wise legislators for the Church, whether spiritual or temporal, had intended to permit. I cannot but think that, in this respect, the relief which this measure is calculated to afford by the change in the declarations is likely to be attended with salutary effects. In truth, we are reminded on this occasion of an argument employed in the discussion of the Roman Catholic Oaths Bill—an argument which, I believe, had a good deal

  657
  of weight with some hon. Members. In that discussion it was not merely urged that the oath—the abolition of which was proposed—would be objectionable in. principle if it received this or that interpretation, but the chief objection made against it was that no one knew what the real interpretation was. If I were one of the clergy I should myself be disposed to place upon it the construction suggested by the context of the Act of Uniformity, and to hold that it merely meant that the subscribers unreservedly consented to the use of the whole and every part of the forms in question; but I cannot deny that there is a tendency in its terms to catch at tender and scrupulous consciences, and to exact, or seem to exact, a more complete concurrence of opinion and judgment, as well as practice, than could be reasonably expected of any man with respect to formularies so extensive—a concurrence which, moreover, is not necessary for the purpose of an honest and practical submission and obedience. No doubt many minds have been troubled by it, because they thought that it meant, "This is exactly the service which I like best; there is nothing in it that I dislike or would desire to see changed." I do not believe that that was the meaning of the declaration; but if any such scrupulous consciences can be relieved by this measure which has met with such unanimous concurrence, I shall greatly rejoice that such a conclusion has been arrived at. Besides, if there were nothing else in the Bill, the mere simplification which it will introduce into the declaration, by getting rid of the unnecessary variety of subscriptions which now prevail, will be a good thing; and I do not think that it will prove what an hon. Member seemed to think it might—a sort of banner of revolution to the Church. The substituted form of the declaration affords, I think, sufficient safeguard to the Church, and is not in any way inconsistent with the firmest adherence to the principle of holding its ministers bound to render strict obedience to its doctrines and discipline. If the alteration, while doing this, is calculated at the same time to relieve the difficulties which affect the consciences of some clergymen, the result is one with which we have every reason to feel satisfied; and this I believe, is the view in which the Church generally will regard the measure. I will now leave the general subject of the Bill, and come to those questions which have been put to me
  658
  by some hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) made a speech in which I understood him not so much to object to the Government consenting to the request of the English Convocation that they may be permitted to take their part in this alteration with a view to the consistency of their own canons, but to urge upon the Government, in case that request were granted, that it Would be inconsistent and wrong not to do the same thing with regard to the Irish Convocation. It would, perhaps, seem to be a somewhat technical answer to say that, in the case of the Irish Church, there is no existing Convocation or synod by whom a similar application could have been made. If there were reason to suppose that the general sense of the Irish Church might refuse to accept the proposal contained in this Bill as a desirable and salutary change, then there would be more force in the objection that they should be consulted. There is, however, this substantial difficulty in the way, that you have at this moment no Irish Convocation or synod in existence. In order to consult it you would in short have to create a Convocation in Ireland. It is not said that, for the purpose of legislation, it is necessary to ask the advice of Convocation; for everybody admits that if this Act of Parliament passes it must be obeyed. Neither is there any doubt as to whether the Irish Church regards the proposed change as desirable and salutary. The only question, therefore, is, whether the Crown should, in fact, create an Irish Convocation in order that it might show it the courtesy of asking its opinion. In England such is not the case. In this country, even when Convocation had nothing to do but to address the Crown, it was regularly elected and always met. That being so, and the Convocation, now sitting:, having signified their desire to co-operate as far as lay in their power in the change recommended by the Royal Commissioners by adapting certain of their canons to that change, there is, I consider, good reason why the Government should accede to their application. But surely this cannot be an equally good reason for calling into existence and electing solely for this purpose an Irish Convocation which has never been in the habit of meeting under similar circumstances. No disrespect, I may add, to the Irish Church was ever intended by the Government. The simple truth is that a practical difficulty was involved in the matter, arising out of the non-existence

  659
  of such an organized body as Convocation in that country, actually holding session and ready to discuss the subject. The Government did not think it indispensable that this form should be gone through, and not deeming it to be indispensably necessary they did not look upon it as expedient. With respect to the English Convocation, I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has shown in the observations which he made this evening less liberality than belongs to his character and the general tenour of his speeches; nor does he appear to me to be very well read in the history of our laws upon this subject. What was it that the English Convocation wanted to do? It might really be a matter of secondary importance, but from their point of view no alteration of ecclesiastical discipline can be considered as unimportant. There were several of their canons dealing with this particular question, embodying on the face of one of them the form of declaration you propose to alter, and then referring to that in others, so that if an Act of Parliament were passed, prohibiting the use of that form of declaration, there would be certain canons, not inoperative, which would be on the face of them in verbal conflict, and, to some extent, substantially in conflict with the law of the land. They ask, therefore, for permission to adapt all these canons to the changes which there is reason to believe Parliament is likely to sanction. And is it not, I would appeal to the House, better, in dealing with Convocation, or with any other body possessing authority in the Established Church, to have their cordial co-operation and goodwill in accepting and carrying out any changes which you may introduce, than to show disrespect for them by declining their assistance, not when seeking to do anything contrary to the inclination of Parliament or anything illiberal or against the spirit of the times, but when concurring with Parliament in a measure which points in a liberal direction, and which their concurrence will cause to work more harmoniously and more for the good of the Church than if it seemed to be forced on them by pressure from without? It would, in my opinion, be a deliberate affront and outrage to the Church, if, when so reasonable a request as this was made for a purpose so liberal and so laudable, you, for the mere purpose of giving them a slap in the face, told them you would not allow that
  660
  which they asked. This leads me to some more general remarks on what fell from the hon. Member for Reading on the subject of Convocation. I do not think that on that subject he has read history aright. He doubts the authority of Convocation to enter into the consideration of a question of this kind, even for the purpose of applying for a licence to the Crown; but he seems to forget that Convocation, whether regarded as an unimportant or an important and respectable body, is as much a part of the institutions of this country as Parliament itself. It forms, and has formed from very ancient times, the particular mode by which the clergy of the Church of England have met together as a representative body, acting under the control of the State and subject to the authority of the Crown, to do that which, according to the law of the Church and State, they were entitled to do. Convocation is summoned by the Queen's writ as often as Parliament is called together and meets to deliberate on important matters. It is in the power of the Crown to put a stop to its deliberations by simply proroguing it. It is well known that, from the time of Bishop Hoadley to within a recent period, it was the regular practice to stop their deliberations by prorogation, though of late years it has not been thought expedient to exercise the undoubted power of the Crown in that respect. The hon. Member for Reading went on to speak of the Act of Henry VIII. as the "Muzzling Act," and seemed to think it would be advisable still to apply the gagging principle to the clergy. Now, a policy more unwise or more inconsistent with the maintenance of the Established Church and of the due control of the State over it I cannot conceive. Supposing the clergy sought to do anything against, or without, the authority of Parliament it would be necessary to put down such usurpation and assumption; but when they propose to do nothing of the kind—when they confine themselves to such functions as it is permitted to them to discharge—when, being excluded from Parliament, they have no power to be heard in this assembly, which is unfitted for the discussion of religious and ecclesiastical questions, and is always reluctant to enter upon them—I cannot deem it wise to refuse to them the opportunity of giving expression to their views in a body which is, after all, as much as any other one of the institutions of the country. The hon. Member for Reading

  661
  talks of their meeting at Willis's Rooms or at Oxford, but such meetings would not organically represent the clergy of the Church of England; and the moment you attempt to put, as has been suggested, a padlock on the clergy, and refuse to them that freedom of speech which is accorded to the General Assembly in Scotland, without being objected to by anybody, and to the voluntary assemblies of every other religious body, with the approbation of the whole nation, you will be, in my opinion, pursuing a course at once impolitic and illiberal. What you want is to keep the Established Church in harmony with the general feeling of the people, and also that due confidence should be felt by the people in the ministers of that Church. How, I would ask, can you better secure that harmony than by having a place where, within safe limits, they may give free expression to their opinions? Do we find that such a privilege has prevented those who may hold whether extreme or moderate views from concurring as a body in support of a liberal measure such as this under discussion? My own opinion is that the policy which allows the members of the Church of England to meet in Convocation, and to give utterance to their sentiments, has been a wise policy, as tending to produce greater moderation of opinion, to soften asperities, and upon the whole to bring the Church more into harmony with public feeling. And, after all, it cannot be said that the Government has given Convocation much power. I believe that all it has asked for has been permission to alter the canon relating to sponsors, which has not yet proved successful; and now they only request leave to express their concurrence in a measure which the House will think both a liberal and a wise one. While their powers are practically restrained within such narrow limits nobody need, I think, fear that any great mischief can he done to the State. I beg my right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside's) pardon for omitting one part of the subject. There is no doubt of the legality of these provincial councils in England with the permission of the Crown, but their authority is confined to their own jurisdiction. Nothing that can be done by the synods of York or Canterbury can have the least authority in Ireland. But I entertain no doubt that the action of the provincial Convocations in England has been, in all respects, as legal since, as, with the allowance of the Crown, before the Act of Union.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had so well put to the House the arguments on which the Bill was founded, that he should not think it necessary to prolong the discussion if it were not that he desired to say a few words in confirmation of what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He had been present at all the deliberations of the Commission down to the time when the preparation of the Report was entered on; he had been a party to the Resolutions on which that Report was founded, and he certainly should have appended his name to it but for the circumstance that when the Report was ready for signature he was in the midst of a serious illness at Rome, which incapacitated him from attending to anything in the way of business, or from having papers submitted to him; and it was not till the present week that he had been able to resume his duties in that House. He was quite ready to accept his share of responsibility for the Report on which the Bill now before the House was founded, and if it had been desirable to prolong the discussion to have stated the grounds of his approval.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction at the spirit and tone in which the Bill had been introduced. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had so clearly shown that, without removing any one of the protections which the Church was fairly entitled to claim, consideration would be extended by this measure to the views and feelings of scrupulous and conscientious clergymen that it was impossible to resist the impression created by his arguments. He had never heard a more full, clear, or satisfactory exposition than that given by the right hon. Gentleman. Into the question connected with Convocation raised by his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Whiteside) he would not enter. Accepting the statement of the Attorney General, that no insult or slight had been intended towards the Irish branch of the Established Church, he would only express a hope that on future occasions whenever consultations or deliberations were thought desirable in Convocation, measures would be taken to secure a representation of the Irish branch of the Church, the necessity for whose consent was not denied. This Bill, he hoped, would have the effect of settling questions which had long been debated, and thereby of

  663
  contributing to the strength and usefulness of that Church which of late years had made such gratifying advances in the affections of the people.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he regretted that the measure or the Report of the Commissioners had not dealt effectually with a question so distressing and discreditable to the Church as that of simony. The spirit of the declaration against practices of this kind was violated every day in the most businesslike manner, and every auctioneer could put a client in the way of obtaining half-a-dozen livings, if necessary, on the shortest possible notice. The Commissioners had not been content to pass the question by, for they had altered the phraseology of the declaration, and, without in any way remedying the evil, had, he feared, laid a new trap for the consciences of the clergy.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

COLONIAL GOVERNORS (RETIRING PENSIONS) BILL— [BILL 133.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (When full Rate may be granted.)
  MR. CAVEsaid, that he had received a communication from the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), stating that, owing to a death in his family, he should be unable to move certain Amendments of which he had given notice, and begging him to take charge of them. He would, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, say a few words in explanation of the Amendments taken together, and then state the course which, with the full concurrence of his hon. Friend, he proposed taking with respect to them. The first related to the age at which a Governor should be entitled to a pension; and he certainly thought that when the harrassing nature of the service and the variety of climates to which he was exposed were considered, sixty was a very advanced age for the commencement of a pension. It was besides a premium on age instead of on work, and could not be defended by reference to the superannuations under the Civil Service Act, where the employment
  664
  was continuous. The next Amendment was the alteration of the term of years from eighteen to fifteen. The explanation of the eighteen was that three separate governments of six years each were to be fulfilled before a claim could be preferred; but it frequently happened that, from ill-health or some accident, or possibly even from some exigency requiring the presence of an able man in another settlement—as in the case of Sir George Grey, for example, who left the Cape for New Zealand when the war broke out—a man might lose a year or two, or even a few mouths, a deficiency, be it remembered, which could not be made up but by an appointment to another full term of six years, so that to make up eighteen years a man might have to serve twenty-three. He thought, therefore, that while maintaining the principle of the three Governments a year's grace might well be conceded to each. The third and last Amendment was, he thought, the fairest of all. Its object was to provide that colonial service should count for pension as well as that in the permanent Civil Service at home. These colonial posts were really filled up by appointments from home, or when appointments were made by the Governors of the colonies they were made with the sanction and subject to the approval of the Colonial Office. That such service was considered excellent preparation for higher offices was proved by the selection of Governors being frequently made from this source; and hard work in a bad climate certainly gave a better claim upon the country than a comparatively easy and healthy life in Downing Street. These were the Amendments of which he had charge. He had often thought that a more careful distribution of the honours in the gift of the Sovereign might have the effect of drawing into the colonial service men to whom the pecuniary question was of less importance; but so long as it was the custom to confer baronetcies on Lord Mayors on account of events with which they had nothing to do, and knighthood on almost any one who would submit to it, so long must they expect to pay liberally for good men. He had, he thought, shown sufficient justification for these Amendments; at the same time he would rather have the Bill as it stood than none at all, and at so late a period of the Session he was unwilling to do anything which might impede or endanger it. It was, therefore, in no hostile spirit that he put it, and he did so most earnestly, to the Secretary of

  665
  State, whether he would not assent to proposals which appeared to him only moderate and just. He moved in line 3, to leave out "sixty," and insert "fifty;" in line 5, to leave out "eighteen," and insert "fifteen;" in line 9, to leave out "permanent."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) would at all events assent to the first of these Amendments, which would reduce the ago at which the full rate of pension might be granted from sixty to fifty years. On the former occasion when the Bill was discussed, when he (Sir John Pakington) had expressed an opinion that very few Colonial Governors were to be found to whom the Bill would apply, the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary of the Colonies) corrected him, and said that eighteen gentlemen would derive benefits from this Bill. But, in private conversation, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that, although there were twenty-eight gentlemen who by their services would be entitled to pensions, only three or four of them had attained the age at which those pensions would accrue. It was clear that many cases of hardship might arise under the Bill as it now stood. It would be very hard, for instance, that a man who had served in a bad climate and returned to this country in bad health at the age of fifty should have to wait for ten years in comparative poverty before he could receive a pension. Difficulties might also arise out of the provision in the fifth clause, which required a service of twelve years before a pension could be granted even at the reduced rate. He himself was acquainted with an instance of a gentleman who, having served as Colonial Secretary in two colonies, was in consequence of his meritorious conduct promoted to a Governorship in the West Indies. There, too, his service was so distinguished that long before the expiry of his government he was transferred to the Mauritius. The consequence was that his term of service amounted to only eleven years, and he was, therefore, disqualified from receiving a pension, while, if he had been less meritorious, he would have remained longer in the West Indies, and would have acquired the right.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that it was a most ungracious task for one in his position to argue against extending the benefits to be given to Colonial Governors under this Bill; but he must at once lay down the
  666
  principle that the only ground upon which the Bill could be justified to the House of Commons was that its operation was to be prospective. Its object was not to give advantages to gentlemen who had already discharged their duty and received the stipulated reward. Of course the House would include such gentlemen in the provisions of any Act which might be passed when they met their cases; but it was his duty to defend the Bill and its arrangements upon prospective grounds. The case which the right hon. Baronet had suggested with reference to the operation of the limit of sixty yean would be met by a provision contained in this clause, that when a gentleman was incapacitated by ill-health contracted in the discharge of his duties he might be allowed to retire at once upon a full pension. The Bill had been framed in entire conformity with the general principle of the Superannuation Acts, the limit of age in which had only recently been reduced from sixty-five to sixty years. As to the proposal to substitute fifteen years service for eighteen, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the next clause of the Bill provided that any one who had served twelve years might receive a pension amounting to two-thirds of the full rate. With respect to the omission of the word "permanent," the clause would then include not only those who had served in this country, but also those who had served in North America or any other of the colonies of the Crown. Hon. Members must remember that they were now dealing with the Consolidated Fund, and he had already had to contend with those who maintained that Colonial Governors ought not to be pensioned out of the Consolidated Fund. The subject was not free from difficulty. It had been considered by several former Governments, as well as by the present—no measure had ever yet been carried—and he believed that the arrangement now proposed was consistent with justice and precedent. He trusted that hon. Members would not press for further concessions. Whatever rule might be laid down, there would be persons outside of it whom it would be desirable to include. The Bill, however, was an important step in the right direction, and he hoped that hon. Members would allow it to pass in its present shape.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he regretted that the Government had confined themselves to so limited a view in reference to these pensions, his own opi-

  667
  nion being that there should be some relaxation as to the rule for granting pensions only after sixty years of age. It was an age that most persons who had passed the best part of their lives in the colonies were not permitted to attain. He thought, however, he should best serve the cause of those in whom he was interested by inviting his hon. Friend (Mr. Cave) to accede to the recommendation of the Colonial Secretary. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the peculiar circumstances connected with colonial service and the office of Governor, and if he could on some future occasion relax a little the conditions of age or length of service he would benefit a meritorious class of officers. He recommended his hon. Friend not to divide, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that after the appeal made to him he would not press his Amendments. He had already stated that he would do nothing to endanger the bill, of which he approved, as an instalment, as far as it went. Thanking, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman for such measure of justice as he had been able to propose, he begged to withdraw his Amendments.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Secretary of State to determine when an Officer is in Administration of Government).
  MR. MOOR MR. MOOR moved at end to add—
  "And for the purposes of this Act the Commission issued under the Great Seal of the Territory of New South Wales for the Government of the district of Port Phillip shall be taken to have constituted the District a Colony."
  He said, that his object was to entitle Mr. Latrobe, who had served three years more than the time stipulated to the pension of a Lieutenant Governor, that gentleman having served under the title of Superintendent, and having administered a territory called, not a colony, but a district. He thought if he could show that Mr. Latrobe exercised the same powers that were exercised by a Lieutenant Governor, and that the territory over which he was placed was virtually a colony, that he might appeal with confidence to the Committee to accept his Amendment. About thirty years ago the territory was occupied by a number of persons for their flocks and herds, and held as their individual property. The Governor of Sydney, however, hearing of this, sent down a small military and civil force to
  668
  take possession of the settlement, but finding it impossible to administer affairs there through the medium of a magistrate, he applied to the authorities at home to send out some person to take charge of the government. In 1839 Mr. Latrobe was appointed by the Colonial Office as Superintendent of what was called the "Settlement of Port Phillip, in the colony of New South Wales," and received instructions to proceed to Sydney in the first instance, to receive his commission, for the reason probably that Port Phillip was then a terra incognita to the Colonial Office, and that they had not the means of describing its boundaries. Mr. Latrobe's commission under the great seal of the colony gave him the title of Superintendent, and set out the boundaries of the district over which he was to preside; and he afterwards received a letter to the effect that he was to administer the government with all the powers of a Lieutenant Governor. On the 11th of September, 183S, was received the Colonial Government Gazette for New South Wales, containing a proclamation with reference to Mr. Latrobe's appointment, in which occurred these words:—
  "Mr. Latrobe will exercise the powers of Lieutenant Governor, and all officers of the Government and others are hereby required to render him obedience and respect accordingly."
  In 1842, an act having passed in this country, giving electoral authority to New South Wales, and also to the district of Port Phillip, it became necessary to alter the boundaries of the latter territory, and a new commission was issued to Mr. Latrobe, in which it was expressly stated that he had the power of a Lieutenant Governor. This was also confirmed in 1856, in a memorandum emanating from the Colonial Office, which professed to give a resume of the proceedings of the different Australian colonies from their commencement. That the territory itself was virtually a colony was proved by the boundaries set out in the commission and the proclamation, and by the fact that the Supreme Court established for Port Phillip had a jurisdiction of its own. As he had this moment been informed that the Government was willing to accept his Amendment he would not of course trouble the Mouse with any further observations.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. The truth, however, was that the colony of Victoria was for a long time

  669
  a district under the colony of New South Wales. It began with small proportions, but grew rapidly great. Mr. Latrobe was not, however, in the position of a Governor, inasmuch as there was no Legislature and no Council in the district. The case was one in which it was not possible to make any general rule, and the Committee, if it agreed to the proposition of the hon. Member, must do so on the understanding that it was to apply to Mr. Latrobe's case alone. He was in the position of Governor for most purposes, and he was a most meritorious man. If the Committee took a liberal view of the case he should be happy to accede to it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to express his great satisfaction at the course taken by the Government. Though Mr. Latrobe only held the position of superintendent, yet in his latter time he had discharged the most difficult duties that could fall upon a Governor. He was practically Governor of Victoria during that period when the advance of the colony exceeded anything in the history of the world; he alluded to the progress caused by the gold discovery. He (Sir John Pakington) held the seals of the Colonial Office at the time, and he could bear testimony to the fact that Mr. Latrobe discharged his duties with great judgment and was well entitled to the consideration of the House.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, that Mr. Latrobe entered upon the duties of his office in 1839, with a salary of £800 per annum, which was raised in 1846 to £1,500, and further increased in 1851, when the gold discoveries took place, to £2,000, and in 1852 to £5,000. In 1854 he resigned. Mr. Latrohe's successor entered upon his duties with a salary of £10,000, with house, and £5,000 for table money.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought a proper reward for this gentleman's meritorious service would be to give him a higher office.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was afraid Mr. Latrohe's age unfitted him for the public service.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. LYALL MR. LYALL moved the following clause:—
  "No person shall be incapable of sitting and voting in Parliament or be liable to any penalty for so doing in consequence of the receipt of a pension under this Act."
  670
  He said, that according to the 6th of Anne any person receiving a pension from the Crown during pleasure was liable to a fine of £500 for sitting in Parliament, and was disqualified for so doing; and by an Act in a subsequent reign he was made liable to further penalties. Those Acts were passed in periods of great corruption, and the reasons for them had passed away. It was not fit that persons should be excluded from Parliament in consequence of receiving a pension from the Crown. Colonial Governors would be very useful Members of the House, and he did not see why, when officers of the army and navy were admitted to scats in that House, civil servants should be excluded. He begged, therefore, to move the clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he opposed the clause, on the ground that this was not the time or the occasion for considering this question which was a very wide one—namely, what ought to be a disqualification for Members of Parliament. At some future time it should come under the consideration of the House. In his opinion it would be necessary rather to restrict than give increased facilities for repeated onslaughts on the Treasury. He was sorry to see such a disposition on the other side to urge Government on every occasion to dilapidate and to waste the resources of the country.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the question, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had observed, was a very wide one—namely, whether pensioners should sit in the House, and when considered by the House ought to be taken upon its own merits. He saw no reason why a special exemption should be made with respect to those affected by this Bill. It was a fair subject for consideration at a future time, but it was not desirable to consider it in connection with this Bill.
  Clause negatived.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to call attention to the inadequate salaries and superannuations of the outdoor officers of Customs. It would be in the recollection of the House that not along ago this subject had been brought under the notice of the House, and the narrow majority by which the Government was saved on that occasion was owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out hopes of redressing the grievances complained of. He now rose to ask what the right hon. Gentleman had done to remedy those grievances, to the existence of which so many Members of that House had testified? He wished to call the attention of the House to the case of the outdoor officers of Customs. Those persons, who were engaged in the discharge of most important and responsible duties, were the only civil servants who did not receive an annual increase in their salaries, which were most paltry and inadequate. The merchants of Liverpool had again and again complained that they ran great risk through the small-ness of the salaries of these officers, who were exposed to temptation in various way, having the employment of charging, checking, and making an estimate of the duty on goods of enormous value. In fact many officers of Customs were quietly dismissed for taking perquisites and for not enforcing the Customs regulations, although the officials did not bring them to trial, as they did not wish to make the matters public. In illustration of his contention that the outdoor officers of Customs were the most ill-paid of all civil servants, he would refer to the superannuation allowances to some of them, as set forth in the Return headed "Superannuation, Public Offices," which was laid upon the table in March last by the Government. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think he was making an invidious selection when he called the attention of the House, in the first place, to the case of John Winter, described in the Return as "Messenger to the Chancellor of the Exchequer," who, having served the public for 27½ years, retired, at the age of 70, with a superannuation allowance of £63 per annum. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contrast the case of his messenger with those of two outdoor officers of Customs—the first of whom, named Bailey, of Newcastle, after twenty-four years' service retired, at the age of seventy-one, with a superannua-
  672
  tion allowance of £14 4s.; and the second, named Booth, of Liverpool, an outdoor porter, after twenty-six years and ten months' service, retired at the age of forty-nine, in consequence of chronic rheumatism, with a superannuation allowance of £28 18s. 2d. It must strike the House with surprise that men upon whom so much responsibility lay should receive superannuation allowances so much inferior to that received by the messenger of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The superannuation allowance was the measure of the salary; and if the salaries were freely adjusted, the superannuation allowances would also be freely adjusted. A man named Freeman, of Sunderland, another outdoor Customs officer, after twenty-four years' service, retired from a concussion of the spine upon £23 a year superannuation, and upon inquiry he (Mr. Hennessy) had learnt that the injury was received in the discharge of his duties. At Cardiff, a man named Evans, a tide waiter, was superannuated upon £15 a year; at Harwich, a man named Bannochs, upon £8; at London, a man named Emmet, upon an allowance of £10 13 s.; and at Belfast, a man named Roberts, upon an allowance of £4 2s. He should not ask the Government to do anything further for these poor men, for as they had found it impossible to live upon their superannuation allowances, they had died upon it. The fact was that the men had been literally starved by the Government. These Customs officers did not receive an annual increase to their salaries like other members of the Civil Service. He would contrast with the case of these outdoor officers that of the sorters in the Post Office, whose salaries (those of the first class) rose gradually from £104 to £130; and of the messengers, whose J salaries rose from £55 to £104, at the rate of £2 12 s. a year. The Report re- commended that an annual increase in allowance in their salaries should take place, and he therefore begged to express a hope—though from what fell on a former occasion from the right hon. Gentleman not a very confident hope—that he would be prepared to do them that justice which was done to other branches of the Civil Service. Another grievance was that these men were subject to a competitive examination before promotion, so that a man after twenty years' service, found himself placed in competition, perhaps, with a man of three years' service, who was younger and better up in the subjects

  673
  of examination. Now, high authorities had declared that this was highly improper. A test examination in the duties which a man had been discharging was a different thing; and he also approved of a competitive examination on entering the service. But a competitive examination before promotion was highly unjust to the older officers of the department, and he hoped that that system would be abolished. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had already pointed out the injustice of this arrangement, and he hoped it would not be continued by the Government. He sat for an inland county in Ireland, and did not represent a single outdoor officer of customs. These grievances had not only been put forward by the officers themselves, but by a large number of merchants on their behalf.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that of late years there had been a transposition of duties in this House. Formerly the Mouse watched over expenditure, and were careful to check extravagance on the part of the Government. But now Members rarely objected to expenditure; and this Session members had got up more frequently than he ever remembered to ask why the officers of this or that department were not better paid. Last year it was the Post Office, but the Government then showed that the men were well paid; and this year it was the out-door Department of the Customs, and he had no doubt there was a fallacy behind the hon. Gentleman's arguments on its behalf. When the hon. Member opposite complained of low pensions being given to certain officers, the question was how long they had served, and whether they were not able to maintain themselves in other ways. Of late years our Civil Service establishments had become so large, the number of persons interested in their maintenance and extension was so great, that he began to fear that the virtue of Parliament would suffer. There was a spirit of combination among the civil servants and their friends to keep up the system. The Civil Service now had a gazette of its own, which trumped up the merits of departments, and complained of inadequate pay. Some time since he had come to the conclusion that the staff of the Department of the Poor Law was more than sufficient, and that the secretary to the office might be dispensed with; but the sense of the House was opposed to any change. Some ten days ago there had appeared an article in the Civil Service
  674
  Gazette, which, after trumpeting forth the services and the grievances of the department, proceeded to make a personal attack upon himself, to which he would not further allude. But the writer of that article, whilst he admitted there was room for judicious reforms which would save expense to the country, and raise the service to a better position, seemed to be of opinion that it was only the members of the department themselves who ought to determine what changes should be made. It almost appeared as though the civil servants of the Crown were acting upon Swift's advice to servants, and were claiming to settle the amount of their own salaries. He felt convinced that if such propositions as those of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) were adopted, the public would protest and demand a total change in the system of paying public servants. He believed that the pay given to persons in the public service was ample. Indeed he was disposed to think it was rather liberal, and that the effect of this was to bring forward candidates of a higher grade in society than those whom it had been intended to appoint. The Government would be neglecting their duty if they did not set their face against this extravagance; for one of the conditions on which they had accceded to office was, that they should look after, examine, and carry reform into the different executive departments of the public service. He hoped the new Parliament, instead of bothering itself about its own reconstruction, would be elected upon the condition of looking after and carrying reforms in the different departments of the executive.
  MR. NEATEsaid, it might be that though at one time it had been necessary to urge the Government to keep down all profuse expenditure, it was now necessary to protest against what might be called the extravagant economy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the Post Office, he did not think the observations of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) were applicable; because the result bad proved that it was rather a case for proper interference, and was a precedent for carrying out the same principle in other departments. With regard to the Custom House, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) had, by means of representations made more than once in that House, induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

  675
  reconsider the case of the officers employed in that department, and somewhat improve their condition. He was of opinion that the Government went a little too far in looking only to the principle of the pay men would take, because, though persons might accept office at a low figure, if after a time they began to compare what they were receiving with the salaries paid to persons employed by private firms, they might arrive at the conclusion that they had made a mistake, and become discontented.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down in respect of what he had described as the extravagant economy of the executive Government. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro had called attention to a very serious consideration, and he was hound to say, even speaking in the presence of his hon. Friend, that though being frequently in contest with him (Mr. Augustus Smith), and having frequently to contest his arguments, whatever might be the responsibility which attached to others, with regard to want of economy in the public expenditure, his hon. Friend was not open to the charge of having swum with the stream. He had been no party to having put forward such demands as that which was now before the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), and other hon. Members whom he might name, had done their duty faithfully as representatives of the people in endeavouring to check and control the public expenditure; and however it might have been his duty to oppose proposals made by those hon. Gentlemen he rendered them only justice when he said thus much as to their personal conduct and the principles which they laid down. Coming to the question before the House, he must say there was something novel in the use which the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) was making of the Appropriation Bill. It was rightly intended that in discussing it the representatives of the people should have every opportunity of checking, narrowing, and controlling the expenditure proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and that the House should have every opportunity of questioning the conduct of the Government in reference to that expenditure; but, as far as his experience went, it was a complete novelty to make use of the Appropriation Bill—
  676
  the great taxing Act of the Session—for the purpose of contending that the people were not taxed enough. The House were indebted to the hon. Member for this new application of the Appropriation Bill. He begged, however, to deny that in challenging the conduct of the hon. Member in questions of this kind he had ever accused him of bringing it forward for the purpose of gratifying his constituents or with a personal object out of a sordid regard for his own political interests. He had never imputed to him anything so unworthy. He thought, however, that the course which the hon. Member pursued was most mischievous; and he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Truro in thinking that if proceedings of this sort should reach a certain point, they would end in important constitutional changes. The hon. Member's main argument in favour of those outdoor officers was founded on the custom of annual increment which he (Mr. Hennessy) held to be the rule in the civil service. It was not true, as far as he knew, that as a rule persons employed in that service were sure of an annual increment to their salaries; but it was a rule that certain salaries were progressive until the persons who received them got out of a certain class, from which time their salaries remained stationary. He thought that an annual increment might be advisable in certain cases; but he was far from thinking it was so wise an arrangement that it was to be assumed to carry an authority, and it was the duty of the Government to say it was the right plan in all cases. In the higher appointments of the Civil Service it was entirely unknown. Neither did it prevail in the lowest grade, and the outdoor officers of Customs were among the lower ranks. [Mr. HENNESSY: No; the messengers.] He begged pardon. The outdoor officers performed duties lower than those discharged by the messengers—duties less confidential. But, however that might be, in those lower appointments the principle of annual increment was very little known. Letter carriers, in some instances, were taken into the Post Office at a very early ago—as early, he believed as eighteen, and there might be other cases in which an annual increment was a fair principle in consequence of the capacity for duty increasing year by year; but the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that the outdoor officers were persons whose knowledge of duty increased each year. The hon.

  677
  Gentleman formed a wrong idea of the public service if he thought that the Government were not entitled, like all other employers, to go into the market and purchase labour at the cheapest rate. He took the case of a man who had been superannuated on £4 a year, and of another who had been superannuated on £8, and he said, "A man cannot live on £8 a year—what a scandal!" The hon. Gentleman wanted any man who had been employed in the dignified appointment of outdoor officer of the Customs—no matter how long or how short might have been his time in the service—to be endowed for ever with the means of supporting himself on his retirement from the office. The hon. Gentleman endeavoured to create an impression that some harsh rule was applied against the gentleman whom he had chosen to take under his protection. On the contrary, one single impartial rule, inflexibly applied, ran through the administration of the Superannuation Act, and it was contrary to the fact to say that one rule was applied, as the hon. Gentleman had attempted to insinuate, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's messenger, for instance, and another to the outdoor officers of the Customs and letter-carriers. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that competitive examination was applied to men who had been for a leugth of time in the service. But the justification of that was, that the duties to which these men were to be transferred were essentially different from those which they had hitherto performed. It would have been fairer, too, if he had mentioned that competitive examination was not the only means of passing from the position of outdoor officers to that of examining officers, but that half the promotions were given by merit on the selection of the Board of Customs. The hon. Gentleman next asked what he had done to carry out the promise which he had given on a previous occasion, although when he made that promise the hon. Gentleman, confident in the interest which had been used to enlist the feelings of Members in support of his cause, did not attach much value to that promise? But he was hound to say that, although he was most happy to receive from Members—like the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) for instance—such information as their superior knowledge enabled them to give of the feelings of the inhabitants of the places they represented, yet on matters of this kind to yield to Parliamentary pressure as long
  678
  as he held his present position he should think an abandonment of his duty. The principle he laid down any hon. Member might challenge, and he would defend it, and if the House chose to censure it, it could do so. The promise which he had made was, that in the peculiar cases which had arisen out of the almost reconstruction of the Customs Department which followed the important changes in the Tariff of 1860, any injury that might accrue to officers in respect of the chances of promotion ought to be looked into, and when they assumed a definite and tangible form ought to be made the subject of arrangement. In various instances personal allowances had been made to officers who had been able to show that they had suffered a tangible injury of that kind. It was impossible, however, to lay down a general principle that in any case, however shadowy, where a possible or presumed injury had been suffered, that it should be made the subject of a fixed compensation. The case of 1860 was a peculiar case. As regarded outdoor officers, they had endeavoured to meet it partly by attempting to fill up the body of examining officers from them, and in special cases they had endeavoured to ascertain whether anything like a fair claim to compensation could be established for injury to the chance of promotion. It was not to be supposed that because the services of a person in a higher class had been dispensed with, that all below in that class were to be compensated. In 1860, when a special case arose, it was met by the promotion of some of the outdoor officers in the Customs. The subject was not to be dealt with in the manner the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish. The Customs, from its aggregation of separate establishments into one Board, was a peculiar organization. Each part had more or less rules adapted to its own particular circumstances, which would not bear comparison, and the principle of local promotion was recognized to a great extent. And, therefore, it was only by inquiry, as the cases arose, that they could be dealt with. On that principle the Government had acted, and on that principle they intended to continue to act. With regard to the extra work performed by landing waiters, inquiry had been made, but nothing had as yet occurred to cause him to believe that anything of a serious nature had existed which he could be called upon to

  679
  notice; but he did not close the door against it. The pay of the different departments, as compared one with another, had for some time engaged the careful attention of the Government, but he was bound to say that he was doubtful whether they could be brought to a standard of comparison. There was no test so good and safe as the willingness of competent persons to accept places under Government, but he did not exclude himself from recognizing the duty of Government to take measures, from time to time according to circumstances and the state of the labour market, for improving all the Government offices; but as yet no case had been brought before them for laying down any general rule of guidance. The hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between the Customs and the other departments, and contended that the Customs were worse paid than the others. That was a matter into which they were inquiring carefully, but he was doubtful whether the allegation could be made good. It was very difficult to draw any comparison between the Customs and the other departments, but as far as the test of the willingness of competent candidates to accept places in the Customs went, nothing had come before him to show that there was any foundation for a general allegation that there was a difference in the rate of remuneration given in the Customs Department and in the other departments of the public service.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow, at Twelve of the clock.

COUNTY COURTS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION BILL (Lords.)— [BILL 150.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to assimilate the Sheriffs' Court of the City of London in all respects to a County Court. He said, that as the title of the Bill was the County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Bill, and the Sheriffs' Court was not a County Court, he could not make the Motion in Committee. The Sheriffs' Court was a very peculiar Court. While there were County Courts for every other part of the United Kingdom there was one spot that was exempt from this most beneficent legislation, and that spot was the City of London. When the affairs of the Corporation
  680
  were examined by a Royal Commission they reported unanimously against the maintenance of this Court. Again, in 1859, when a Private Bill was brought in for the purpose of reforming this Court, the feeling of the House was so strong that it was abandoned. The Committee appointed in 1861 to inquire into the local government of the metropolis also unanimously reported in favour of the abolition of this Court. But, in spite of this unanimity of opinion, the Court continued to exist. While the country was paying £250,000 a year for the administration of justice in the County Courts, this Court was allowed to levy fees to the amount of £5,000 a year and upwards. The salary of the Judge was only £900 a year—a sum far below that paid to the County Court Judges—and there was an accumulation of the fund arising from fees of £8,000. The ultimate destination of this was unknown, though probably it would be made available for some of those festivities of which the Corporation delighted to partake, and which they valued as one of their most desirable franchises. The Bill proposed to give this anomaly a still further recognition. He thought it would be discreditable to the House to go on sanctioning this system. The Bill extended the equitable jurisdiction to the Sheriffs' Court, and he contended that they either ought not to do this, or that, if they did, the other County Court Acts should extend to that Court.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to assimilate the Sheriffs' Court of the City of London in all respects to a County Court."—(Mr. Ayrlon.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not agree to the proposed Instruction. If the Government were to propose to overturn the constitution of the Sheriffs' Court and to displace the Corporation of London in reference to it, he feared that they would be making the Bill the occasion for a contest between the Government and the City of London, which would preclude the hope of passing the measure in the present Session. The Bill actually went to some extent in the direction which the hon. Member desired. The Sheriffs' Court was under a somewhat different form and a somewhat different jurisdiction, doing the work of the County Court; and this Bill would give to it the same equitable jurisdiction that it gave to the County Courts. Another year the assimilation would be

  681
  carried still further. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Instruction.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that not wishing to endanger the passing of the Bill, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Jurisdiction in Equity to be exercised in County Courts in certain Suits and Matters).
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he entertained great doubts whether the jurisdiction proposed to be given to County Court Judges was not far too great, and whether it would not tend to clog the working of their Courts, thereby injuring rather than benefiting the public interests. Were it not so near the close of the Session, he should have felt disposed to move that the maximum of £500 should be reduced to £200.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he should support the clause as it stood, and indeed thought the limit might have been safely fixed at £1,000. Small tradesmen resorted to the County Courts with great confidence, and he thought the jurisdiction ought to be extended to a larger sum.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he approved the clause, believing that the County Courts had given general satisfaction, and that the public were anxious to have these equitable suits rapidly and economically decided by them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the extent of the jurisdiction proposed to be conferred by the Bill had been carefully considered, and he believed it might safely be intrusted to the Judges of these Courts. He thought that £500 would be a proper medium.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he hoped that the limit would not be fixed below £500. If they placed it at a lower amount than that the utility of the measure would be greatly impaired.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that he did not question the competency of the County Court Judges to exercise such a jurisdiction, but feared that the imposition of these new duties upon them would interfere with the small cause business which they now dispatched with so much advantage to the public.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 withdrawn.
  Clauses 5 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Certain Fees to be taken, out of which Judges shall have their Salaries increased to such an Amount as the Fees received will be sufficient to pay to each Judge not exceeding £1,600).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved, in line 20, to leave out from "carried" to end of clause, and insert—
  "Paid over to the credit of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the salaries paid out of such Fund to the Judges of the County Courts shall be increased by three hundred pounds a year: Provided always, That the salary of the successor to any Judge who under this Act shall receive a larger salary in the whole than one thousand five hundred pounds, shall not exceed one thousand five hundred pounds: Provided also, That if any Judge heretofore appointed shall resign his office by reason of any permanent infirmity before he shall have received or become entitled to receive the increased amount of salary payable to him under this Act for the full period of five years, any annuity which the Lord Chancellor may recommend to be paid to him upon such retirement shall be calculated with reference to the average amount of salary received or receivable by him for the five years next preceding the date of such retirement, and not with reference to the yearly salary which he shall be entitled to as a Judge of County Court at the time of presenting his petition for the grant of an annuity.'"
  In margin of clause, substitute for present note—
  "Certain fees to be taken and to be paid over to the Consolidated Fund, and the salaries of the Judges to be increased by 6300 a year;"
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Judge not obliged to hold Courts in September).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved an Amendment to allow the County Court Judges, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, to select any other month than that of September for their annual vacation.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHthought the Judges should be required to take their holidays during the period of the long vacation.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, if a County Court Judge wished to take his holyday at any other time than the long vacation he ought to provide a substitute.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the clause might safely he left as he proposed.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN COLONEL WILSON PATTEN moved a clause to follow Clause 18—
  [Appeal to be made either to the High Court of Chancery or a Vice Chancellor.]
  "In any case which may be the subject of an appeal under this Act in causes arising within the

  683
  County Palatine of Lancaster, the appeal may, at the option of the party appealing, be made either to the High Court of Chancery or a Vice Chancellor thereof, or to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, or the Vice Chancellor thereof; and that in case of an appeal to the Court of Chancery for the said County Palatine or the Vice Chancellor thereof, the order on such appeal shall have the same effect as if it had been made by a Vice Chancellor of the High Court of Chancery."
  He said, that this was the first time the Courts of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster had been treated otherwise than the Superior Courts of Westminster Hall. The object of his clause was to preserve to the former the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed.
  MR. POTTERsaid, that there was an exemption clause already by which all the rights of the Courts of Stannaries in the Duchy of Cornwall were reserved. If that were done in Cornwall why should it not be done also for the Chancery Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster, the business of which was a hundred-fold greater than that of all the Courts of Stannaries?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Bill gave no new jurisdiction to the Courts of Stannaries or took anything away. At present there was an appeal from the decision of the Vice Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster to the High Court of Chancery. If the clause were agreed to the effect would be to deprive the mercantile community of Liverpool and Manchester of the rights of ultimate appeal which they now possessed, inasmuch as the decision of the Vice Chancellor would, under the Act, be final. This clause gave the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine official jurisdiction; and he did not see any reason why the suitors there should be compelled to put up with an inferior equitable jurisdiction.
  MR. C. TURNERsaid, the Attorney General was entirely wrong in thinking that the people of Lancashire would not be satisfied without going to the High Court of Chancery. The truth was, they did not want any power to appeal to the Courts in London, but to have appeals decided in the cheapest Court, and in the speediest manner. He believed the mercantile interests both of Liverpool and Manchester were quite satisfied with the decisions of the gentleman who presided over the Chancery Court at Liverpool.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that this was but a repetition of the attempts so often made to annihilate these Courts. Their defenders had the disad-
  684
  vantage of having to meet the lawyers of Westminster Hall, who were always trying to bring the Courts of the Palatine up to London. These attempts had hitherto always been successfully resisted; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to suggest that the words "at the option of the party appealing" should be altered so as to give both parties the option.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that he would assent to this Amendment.
  MR. CHEETHAMsaid, the Attorney General need not fear the Courts here being disturbed with many appeals by Lancashire men to the prejudice of their own just, epuitable, and economical Courts.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought it possible to carry theoretical objections too far, and he therefore would consent to the insertion of the clause.
  MR. C. TURNERsaid, that on behalf of the people of Manchester, who would naturally wish to have recourse to the local court, he must oppose the Amendment proposed on the ground that it would render the clause valueless, inasmuch as one of the parties would be sure to object.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

INDEMNITY BILL— [BILL 234.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." (Mr. Peel.)
  MR. HADFIELD MR. HADFIELD moved that it be read a second time that day three months. He said it had been declared by a noble Lord for whom hon. Members at the other side of the House had great respect (Earl Derby), that the particular declaration pointed at by this Bill, as a protection to the Established Church, was not worth the paper on which it was written so far as it professed to accomplish that object. It was kept up merely as a badge of predominance, and for the purpose of insulting and marking off millions of Englishmen as serfs. The indemnity was sought upon the assumption that persons were ignorant of the law requiring them to take it, were absent from the country, or for other reasons of that

  685
  sort. Among the persons, however, supposed to be ignorant of the law were officials no less exalted than the Attorney General and Commander of the Forces. He had introduced a Bill to obviate the necessity of taking the oath to which this Bill referred, and that Bill had been agreed to by that House six times; and after all that, to his great surprise the Bill had been rejected by the other House. The great Conservative leader in the other House had summoned the Peers to reject the measure. By this Indemnity Bill the Ministers passed a measure for themselves which they refused to their fellow-subjects. That was a miserable exhibition of legislation. It was quite time to put an end to this system of things. If the other House would not repeal the Oath's Act they ought to insist on the oath being taken by all to whom the Act applied, and the House ought to reject this Indemnity Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. PEELsaid, that if the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had become law—as he wished it had—it would still have been necessary to pass the annual Indemnity Bill, which was applicable not only to the declaration substituted for the old sacramental test, hut also to the consolidated oath which had taken the place of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. The only difference, if the Bill of the hon. Member had passed, would have been that there would have been no reference in the Indemnity Bill to the subject of the declaration referred to. If they could not repeal the law as the hon. Member wished, the next best thing was to suspend its operation. He therefore hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass into law. With regard to the clauses of which the hon. Member for Sheffield had given notice, he could offer no opinion till he had an opportunity of seeing them.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thought the House instead of passing an Indemnity Bill ought honestly to repeal some of the Acts to which the Indemnity Bill related, and which rendered it necessary. One, in particular, an extraordinary one, the 2nd of Anne, c. 6, was entitled "An Act to prevent the further growth of Popery;"
  686
  and stated that "some of Her Majesty's subjects in extreme sickness and decay of their reason and senses are persuaded and perverted from the Protestant religion;" and it provided, that all persons so persuaded should suffer very severe penalties unless they made declarations in accordance with that Act. Without doing anything invidious, he might say that there were hon. Gentlemen in the House who would be exposed to all the penalties of that Act, the severest of which, no doubt, would be the taking of the declaration. Another clause of the Act provided, that no "Popish" tenant should hold land, except at a certain exceptionally high rental. As he did not believe that any one would venture to enforce that Act, if this Bill was not passed he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the effect of the clanses, of which his hon. Friend (M. Hadfield) had given notice, would be to render an annual Indemnity Bill unnecessary, by abolishing the declaration which the law now required to be made. If the Government would take charge of a measure containing such clauses perhaps certain people in another place would allow it to pass. There was a great terror in that place of giving a triumph to the Dissenters represented by his hon. Friend. Whether that feeling was worthy of a great House, or was a very mean one, he would leave the public to determine; but if the Government would take up the measure it would go into the other House under auspices which would render it in the eyes of some people more respectable, and possibly it might pass. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Peel) would give a pledge that the Government would adopt that course—and probably he would do so, as many things could be done just before a general election—his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House. As it was, he was anxious to carry a reform, which he said was desired by millions of his fellow-countrymen, and he was, therefore, fairly at liberty to take every opportunity of insisting upon that being done in favour of which they decided in six successive Sessions.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 18: Majority 14.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed, for To-morrow,

TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.

  [BILL 227.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Motion that the Preamble he postponed,
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  SIR MICHAEL BEACHsaid, he would not oppose the Bill, but he hoped that the Government would next Session introduce a more general and comprehensive measure on this subject. Many roads were unjustly and inequitably dealt with by this Bill. The principle upon which it was based was that of putting the charges of the turnpike roads upon the parishes through which they ran, according to the mileage of the roads. He trusted that the Government would next Session bring in a Bill to place the maintenance of these roads either upon the highway district or upon the county, so as to make the inhabitants of the towns pay their proportion of the expense.
  COLONEL PENNANTsaid, the House was aware that there were a great many turnpike trusts the local Acts with respect to which had expired. These trusts varied in almost every case with regard to the circumstances under which they were continued—the debt, the manner in which it had been incurred, the income, and the liabilities of the parishes through which the roads passed. Each year a Bill was introduced to continue the trusts, with the exception of those which were placed in the schedules. It was much better to leave the selection of the road trusts which were to be placed in the Continuance Act to the Home Office than that an individual Member, pressed perhaps by his constituents, should move to insert any particular trust in the schedule.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, it would, no doubt, be exceedingly desirable if the House could see its way to some general legislation for the abolition of these trusts, but it was perfectly impossible to do so at the present time. In every case which came before the Home Office great care was taken to inquire as to whether the trusts ought to he abolished, so as not to throw any extraordinary liability on particular parishes.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, be believed that every Motion made was recorded by the Clerk of the Committee. He should be glad to know what record was made of the Motion that these three Bills be referred to the same Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Order of the House was that the three next Orders should be referred to the same Committee.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: Who is recorded as the Mover of the Motion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not given. Motion withdrawn.
  Clause 1 (Continuance of Acts, except 7 G. 4. c. lxxxv., 7 G. 4. c. cxxv., 7 & 8 G. 4. c. vii., 9 G. 4. c. cviii., 1"W. 4. c. viii., 3 W. 4. c. liii., 3 W. 4. c. lxi., 3 & 4 W. 4. c. c., 2 Vict. c. xiv., 5 Vict, c. xlv., 6 & 7 Vict. c. cviii., 13 & 14 Vict, c. lxxxv).
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he had to move an Amendment, the object of which he stated to be to introduce the Lower Road from Greenwich to Woolwich into the Bill, contrary to a promise made in the last Session by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), that the trust should, in the present Session, be decided upon by a Select Committee, along with the New Cross Road, the Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Deptford Road, and the Surrey and Sussex Road. It had been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of continuing it. That was a course directly contrary to the arrangement made, and he was fully justified, therefore, in taking the sense of the House upon the subject. The Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Road Trust having been given up, and a rate levied for the support of the road, complaint was necessarily made of the invidious distinction. It was no answer to the claim that a toll should be taken off that there was a small debt existing. A proposal was made by the deputation to the Home Office for paying off this debt, but nothing had been done. The inhabitants of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, where the trusts had been abolished, complained of having to pay eightpence in the pound to maintain their roads while a turnpike was kept up which interfered with their trade in supplying Woolwich with goods. The debt upon the tru3t was only £2,000. At the north side of the river a debt of £20,000 had not stood in the way of a trust being put in the schedule. If the House had come to a resolution, that within a certain metropolitan area road trusts should be abolished, that resolution should be adhered to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 4, to add, at the end of the Chaise, the words, "also an Act fifth George the Fourth, chapter fifty-six, for repairing the Lower Road from Greenwich to Woolwich, in the county of Kent."—(Mr, Locke.)
  MR. T. G. BARINGwas not aware that the House had decided that there should be no turnpike trusts in the metropolis regardless of existing interests. The roads on the north of the Thames had only been thrown on the rates when the debts had been paid off. No doubt, the Archway and Kentish Town Trust was abolished, notwithstanding the existence of a long debt, but in that way a proprietory road could not be quoted as a precedent in this case. The trust to which the hon. Gentlemen referred had a bonâ fide debt of between £2,000 and £3,000, the interest had been revised by the Home Office within a short time, and the debt was being paid off at the rate of £500 per annum, so that it would be liquidated in about four years. To abolish this trust now would be a confiscation of the property of those who had lent their money upon its security. The Home Office were anxious to relieve the metropolis from road tolls, and the south side of London had been so relieved to a great extent. The three trusts had been put on the schedule which were free from debt; the other trust was not. The gate between Greenwich and Woolwich could not be said to be a tax on the inhabitants of Camberwell.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that as representing the borough of Southwark, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. G. Baring) would re-consider his decision. He had certainly understood on the occasion of the deputation to the Home Office, that the toll should he abolished. There had boon a promise that the Bill should this Session be referred to a Select Committee. The inhabitants of Southwark and the inhabitants of Woolwich had petitioned against the Bill. The toll was a source of great inconvenience to his constituents.
  MR. COXsaid, that there was no good case for maintaining these tolls any more than there had been for maintaining those upon the north side of the Thames. Then private interests were concerned, and yet the tolls were abolished.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it had been conceded that one of the greatest impediments to traffic in the metropolis was the existence of these tolls. If persons lent their money on the security of an Act of Parliament the term of which had expired he thought then the public interest should be paramount to that of creditors.
  Question put, "That those words be there added,"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 14: Majority 4.
  And it appearing that 40 Members were not present:
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:—House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.