Commons Sitting of 19 February 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On House of Commons (Arrangements) appointed; on Military Reserve Funds nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bank Holydays [15]; Life Policies Nomination [19]; Compulsory Church Rates Abolition [21].
Third Reading—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance [28], and passed.

REGULATION OF COAL MINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill for the Regulation of Coal Mines, founded on the Report of the Committee on that subject, which was presented last Session; and whether, in deference to the recommendations of that Committee, he has exercised, or whether he intends to exercise the power which he now possesses of appointing additional Inspectors of Coal Mines?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he was not yet in a position to state whether he would bring in a Bill for the regulation of Mines. He was at present in communication with several persons on the subject. As to whether, in deference to the recommendations of that Committee, he had exercised, or intended to exercise, the power he possessed of appointing additional Inspectors of Coal Mines, that was a matter which was still in abeyance. At present he was not prepared to appoint such a number of Inspectors as would relieve proprietors of their charge, and make the Government responsible for the management of Mines. He was only disposed at present to appoint a number of Inspectors sufficient to see that proprietors managed their Mines with due care.

BANK HOLYDAYS BILL— [BILL 15.]
(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Stacpoole.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it had three distinct objects. The first was to make the day after Christmas Day, commonly called St. Stephen's Day, a Bank holyday; the next
942
was to enable the Queen in Council, by Royal Proclamation, to make a Bank holyday either for the whole country or for any particular part of it, without the necessity of obtaining an Act of Parliament, which was at present required; and the third was to make bills of exchange and promissory notes which fell due upon Sunday, payable on Monday instead of, as now, on Saturday, and those which fell due upon a holyday payable on the day after, instead of the day before. In respect of the first object, he believed there was no substantial objection to the Bill. The general feeling, inside the House and out of it, was that the day after Christmas Day should be made a Bank holyday. Hon. Members were aware that the day after Christmas Day was becoming more and more a general holyday for the whole kingdom. The holyday was celebrated in all the public offices, except, perhaps, the Customs, and he trusted that soon it would be made one there. In the columns of The Times at Christmas an immense number of commercial houses announced that they would be closed the day after Christmas Day. It was, however, impossible for the banks to close without an Act of Parliament, and hence the necessity for this Bill. This holyday was its chief object, and he did not think that any reasonable objection could be raised to it. The bank clerks were a hard worked body of men and ought to have secured to them any reasonable relaxation, and considering the few holydays they got as a body, it was not too much to give them the day after Christmas Day. It was an old saying that Christmas came only once a year. He had presented a petition for this holyday signed by 3,500 bankers' clerks, and another petition had been presented which was signed by influential bankers in different parts of the country. On the other hand, there had been an entire absence of opposition to the Bill in the organs of public opinion. A banker's clerk could hardly enjoy Christmas Day if he was obliged to be at the bank by nine o'clock next morning; and it was utterly impossible at present for him to join friends in the country. As to the making of a Bank holyday without an Act of Parliament, no such holydays could be made at present except on days of Public Fast or Thanksgiving. It often happened that it was advisable or necessary on a particular occasion that there should be a holyday in the whole country or in some part of it;

943
but the holy day could not be made unless Parliament was sitting. On the occasion of the funeral of the Duke of Wellington public feeling was so strongly in favour of a holyday that Government brought in and Parliament passed a Bill making the day a Bank holyday in London and within ten miles of the City. The Government were able to do that because Parliament happened to be sitting in November, otherwise a Bank holyday could not have been obtained. He therefore proposed that the Queen in Council should have the power to proclaim a Bank holyday in London, in Dublin, or in Edinburgh without the necessity of having recourse to an Act of Parliament and the House would feel satisfied that the discretion was not likely to be improperly exercised. From what he had heard he believed there was some difference of opinion about the last part of the Bill, which would make promissory notes and bills of exchange payable the day after instead of the day before Sunday or a holyday. He was quite prepared to accede to a suggestion for further inquiry before that part of the Bill was adopted. It might be said that he proposed a radical change in the commercial law of England; but it was only in England and in France that payment on the day before the holy-day was required. Payment the day after was the rule in Holland, in Russia, and in Germany. In 1847 Prussia proposed a commercial code for Germany. It was considered at a meeting of delegates from Northern States held at Leipsic in October, 1847, and in November, 1848, the code was adopted by legislative enactment at Frankfort. Since then the code had been adopted in thirty-seven different States, including Hamburg. By that code bills falling due upon a holyday or a Sunday were made payable on the day after. France and England were, so far, exceptions to the rest of Europe in this respect. Even in France, under the Code Napolêon, although bills were payable the day before, they could not be protested until the day after a holyday; here they might even be protested the day before. In America the law was peculiar. There might be days of grace according to agreement between the parties. If there were, and the last day of grace was a Sunday, the bill was payable on the Saturday; but if there were not, the bill was not payable until the Monday. It was no great revolutionary change to adapt the law of England in this respect to that of the majority of European
944
States. It was a curious thing that even here, although promissory notes falling due on the Sunday were payable on the Saturday, the interest of bonds or debentures under like circumstances did not fall due until Monday. The Bill would make the law alike with respect to bills of exchange, notes, and bonds. If two days' bills were to be paid on one day, it was much more convenient that they should be paid on the Monday than that they should be paid on the Saturday, which was more or less of a half-holyday. In some parts of England the banks closed in the middle of the Saturday, and in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast they closed at one o'clock. A great number of commercial bills fell due on the 4th, and when that was Sunday, Saturday's business was very heavy. It had been said that if St. Stephen's Day were made a Bank holyday three close days might come together—Christmas Day, Saturday, and Sunday; but that could occur only once in every five or six years; and the objection to it was not so great as it otherwise would be when it was remembered that there was a general suspension of business at that period.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, the hon. Baronet was kind enough to speak to the President of the Board of Trade and himself on the subject of this Bill. They informed the hon. Baronet that it was not the intention of the Government to oppose the second reading; because they considered the subject was a fair one for consideration, and there had been an expression favourable to the hon. Baronet's opinion out of doors; but, at the same time, they guarded themselves carefully from saying that they approved of the details of the Bill. Since that time he had made it his business to inquire what was the general feeling of the commercial public in the City; indeed, he saw an influential deputation on the subject an hour ago, He found very great variety of opinion with respect to the measure, and as the hon. Baronet had clearly stated the arguments in favour of his proposals, he would mention very briefly some of the objections to the Bill passing in its present shape. In the first place, the provisions with regard to Christmas Day and Good Friday could not apply to Scotland, because those

945
days were not observed north of the Tweed; and he believed that the practice of Edinburgh as to fast-days and holydays differed from that of the rest of Scotland. Well, then, suppose the Bill limited to England, or England and Ireland. In Scotland, bills due on Sunday were payable on Saturday. He would take the case of a trader in Scotland—and the same might be said of a foreigner, at least of a Frenchman—having to pay a bill on a Sunday—that is, on a Saturday—and expecting a remittance to enable him to do so on account of a Bill due to him in England on the same day. But if that Sunday was the day before Christmas Day, he would not under this Bill get his money till the Wednesday, so that he would have to provide, it might be said, 40 s. in the pound in the interval. It was a serious thing for a man not to get his money until four days after he expected it. Again, it had been represented to him by bankers that there would be immense inconvenience in large establishments in crowding into one day the work of four; and it must be remembered that though this was called by some a merchants' question, it was one of great consequence to bankers. The merchant advised the bill, but the hanker had the trouble of paying it. With respect to holydays by Royal Proclamation, it might seem clumsy that an Act of Parliament should have to be passed to enable these to be kept as close holydays; and it was, of course, impossible to pass such an Act when Parliament was not sitting, as would, under ordinary circumstances, have been the case at the time of the Duke of Wellington's funeral. But, at the same time, there was some advantage in submitting such a question to the review of Parliament. It was becoming the fashion to give more holydays than formerly, and it had been urged, though he did not insist on the argument, that the practice might be extended till considerable inconvenience arose. It had been suggested to take a middle course, and provide that these should be holydays except for clearinghouse purposes—that was, except for paying bills—and that not more than two should be so proclaimed in the year. He found a more general concurrence in the proposal to make bills falling due on Sunday payable on Monday, as a matter of convenience, and for the sake of the half-holyday; because Saturday was now scarcely a half-holyday in banks, and certainly not when it was the 3rd or 4th of the
946
month. Moreover, it being a short day of business, small traders, who had to run about here and there to collect money to meet bills, were very often put to great straits. On the whole, the opinion of those whom he had consulted agreed that these questions had better be referred to a Select Committee, in order that the balance of advantage or disadvantage arising from the change might be inquired into. He understood from the hon. Baronet that he assented to this course. There were two other points akin to the subject-matter of the Bill which were also of great importance. The first was the abolition of days of grace, which he believed had taken place in every country, or nearly every country, except England. The object of days of grace seemed to have ceased in these days of telegraphy and acceleration of mails. The other was the practice of noting bills on the day on which they fell due. The practice of noting bills was rather curious, and perhaps the House would allow him briefly to describe it. Unpaid bills came back from the clearinghouse at five in the evening to the banks to which they belonged, they went through the banker's book, and were placed in the hands of a notary, who sorted them into districts or "walks," and committed them to clerks, who took them, presented them at the banks at which they were made payable, and then applied to the acceptor at his place of business. This happened long after office hours—any time, in fact, before 12 o'clock at night. The clerk, of course, found no one either at the bank or at the place of business except perhaps an old woman. He went next day to the bank with his notarial ticket attached to the bill, for which he charged 1s. 6d., and this became the legal evidence for the protest which ensued. This operation seemed very absurd; and it had been proposed to extend the time for noting bills to 12 at noon on the following day, by which time he was told many bills would be taken up and expense saved. Attempts had from time to time been made to legislate on both these questions, but had not been successful. The deputation he saw that day expressed a strong wish that these points should be inquired into by the Select Committee on this Bill; and, if the House agreed, he should be willing to move that the order of reference include them. He found a general wish for a full inquiry before legislation on these matters, and a feeling that we ought not for the sake of

947
mere symmetry, and unless the advantage gained be great, to change ancient customs, because any change, even for the better, in the commercial practice of an old country like this must be productive of disturbance and inconvenience.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that a very large question had arisen, out of what was originally a very small one. The origin of the Bill was the desire to make the day after Christmas Day and other holydays perfectly close; but that was a matter very distinct from the question raised by the Vice President of the Board of Trade as to general legislation on the subject of bills of exchange. As regarded a bank holyday on the day after Christmas Day and Good Friday, there was much force in the objection based upon the Scotch law. There were other objections besides that. The Bill professed to deal only with questions of banking; but it would affect many other branches of commerce. It was a serious thing to stop the commerce of the country even for one day. One question which would arise was that of insurances. What was to cover the insurance of ships announced by telegraph, supposing there were three or four close days together? It might be said that insurance was not banking; but you could not stop half the business of the city without stopping the whole, and the laudable intention of increasing holydays must embrace all branches of business. So long as the mails ran it would be difficult to keep a close holyday. The case of Scotland had been mentioned; but it would be the same with foreign transactions. It might happen that remittances would have to be made to foreign creditors on Saturday, while, owing to the intervening holydays, the money due to the same firm by English debtors might not be received until the following Wednesday. He would not encourage the proclamation of holydays by the Queen, for unless the days to be proclaimed were known long beforehand they might cause great inconvenience, and perhaps, in some cases failure, owing to the disappointment of money not coming in on the day when it was due, through the action of Parliament enacting that money should be paid the day after instead of the day before. He thought it most desirable that the question with respect to bills of exchange should receive the fullest investigation, for it was one infinitely more difficult than might appear at first sight. With regard to the question of making bills due on Sunday payable on the day after, instead
948
of the day before, there was some force in what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade, but it should be remembered that Monday was one of the busiest days in the London banks. On Monday, there are generally two days' mails bringing two days' bills, which involved a great deal of additional work, and, therefore, by attempting to relieve Saturday, a burden might be thrown on the Monday which it would not be easy to bear. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stephen Cave) had raised the important question of referring to the Select Committee on this Bill the general subject of alterations that might be made in the law on bills of exchange. He would suggest that if we were setting about changing our laws with respect to bills of exchange, it would be exceedingly desirable to do so in concert with foreign countries. Bills of exchange were the means by which our business with foreign countries was conducted, and the greatest confusion might arise from a difference in our laws upon the subject, and those of foreign nations. The laws with regard to the endorsing, noting, and protesting of bills, differed in France, Germany, England, and other countries; and the consequence was that, in many cases, people receiving bills from abroad, scarcely knew what measures they ought to take to secure their payment. As the Board of Trade had taken advantage of some opportunities for assimilating the law of this country to that of foreign nations, he would suggest that it might be opportune, in dealing with the subject before the House, to see whether, by common consent, some fairly universal system might not be adopted. Such a course would not, he thought, interfere with the investigation by the Select Committee, which might elicit some valuable information on this subject. He should deprecate any attempt at legislation without the fullest previous investigation.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he had been anxious to hear what were the reasons for the proposed changes, for he had heard a great deal against it from persons of very high authority. The hon. and learned Baronet had said that his Bill might be called a revolution. He was not going to object to it on that account; he only thought it an imperfect and useless measure. The Vice President of the Board of Trade had said that in a commercial country there was an evil in change unless it were counterbalanced by immediate or great pro-

949
spective benefit. He must say he saw no advantage in the proposal of the hon. Baronet. The Bill contained two principles—the compulsory making of holydays without any disturbance of the rate of remuneration, and the postponement of the payment of just debts. The hon. Baronet proposed that Bills should, in some cases, be paid four days after they were now payable, but that might become a very serious matter indeed. There was no doubt that the transfer of business from Saturday to Monday would entail enormous additional labour on the banks. He confessed he saw no ground for a Committee of inquiry. It was a small and petty measure as proposed, and the Government might have fairly accepted the opinion of those most interested—the gentleman at the head of the great banks. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had suggested an inquiry into the whole of our commercial system of bills of exchange and international relations. But if they were going to propose a new code of commerce what an absurdly vast inquiry to enter into in connection with such a petty measure as this. The British Code of Commerce was founded on the decisions of the Courts of Law, and there was no better code of commerce in the world. But if we were to enter upon an inquiry in the first place whether we were to change the days of grace, and then whether our system of endorsement and all our usages of commerce were in conformity with those of the rest of the world, we should enter not only into a vast and endless field of investigation, but throw an injurious uncertainty into our commercial relations. The hon. and learned Baronet was for postponing payment, but the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President was for anticipating it and doing away altogether with the days of grace. But such changes would, in point of fact, be very mischievous; they would derange commercial usages abroad, where they reckoned on the three days after the bills were due. His right hon. Friend was of opinion that on Saturday it would be more convenient for the small trader to put off cashing his bills until Monday, because Saturday was a short day. But, however short a day it was, the petty trader, in all probability, would find it more convenient to have his bills cashed. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he had got 3,000 or 4,000 petitioners for an increase of bank holydays. He had no doubt of it. It was
950
easy to find petitioners for such a purpose, and if it were proposed to get up a petition for an increase of the Easter and Whitsuntide holydays of that House, he was not sure that it would not receive a great number of signatures. The gentlemen who had signed the petition for this Bill thought that they could do less work for the same pay. But he did not know what benefit was proposed by increasing the number of compulsory holydays, and it was well known that the paucity of holydays, in Protestant countries, was regarded as giving them a commercial advantage. He was sorry that the Vice President of the Board of Trade had given his consent to a Committee, but he hoped that they would not have to go into an inquiry as to our commercial code.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, it was a great advantage to the House to hear upon this subject the opinion of the first commercial authority in this country. As far as he was acquainted with the views of the banking interest, they were most anxious to relieve their clerks and give them as many holydays as they could; and if the Bill had been limited to the power of the Privy Council to grant holydays, he would not be disposed to offer any opposition. What bankers felt alarmed at was the change of day upon which mercantile obligations were payable. It was now well known that bills coming payable on holydays must be paid the day before. In Scotland the practice was the same, both as regarded general holydays and certain Church holydays. He had made inquiries about the American usage, and he found that almost all the States followed closely the custom derived from the mother country. Then it should not be forgotten that the commercial regulations of France were derived from the Code Napoléon which was compiled by men who had examined carefully all the customs of society, and a part of that Code was that bills payable on any recognized holyday should be paid the day before. He believed that in every part of Europe in which the Code Napoléon prevailed the custom as to the payment of bills was the same; but his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had been compelled to cite Prussia and Russia as authorities to this country. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade and the Committee of Inquiry were of opinion that, with due regard to the interests of commerce, the custom of pay-

951
ing bills should be altered to the day after instead of the day before they were due, he was quite prepared to give his consent; but he would say that when a man of honour and commercial reputation had given his bill, and found that it could not be paid on the day it was due, he would feel it, not merely a matter of commercial usage, but of personal honour, to go at once and pay the Bill the day before, and that had been the usage of this country ever since it had become a commercial nation.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he decidedly objected to the extension of the Bill to Scotland, for the simple reason that the great mass of the people of Scotland being Presbyterians know nothing at all about Good Friday, and he might almost say they knew still less of St. Stephen's Day. He confessed, for his own part, that he did not know there was such a Saint's day in the calendar until he heard the hon. Gentleman name it. To propose to suspend business for two days, as to which the mass of the population of Scotland were utterly ignorant—not even knowing when they occurred—seemed to him most preposterous. Suppose a man went to the Bank on Good Friday to get a remittance, the bill being due in London, what was he to do when he found the doors closed? It was most objectionable to try and force a practice of this kind upon a people who had no sympathies with it, or knowledge of the reasons why these particular days should be set apart.
MR. BARNETTsaid, he thought the Government had taken a wise course in referring the Bill to a Select Committee, and he hoped the inquiry would be limited, as far as possible, to the scope of the measure. The existence of bank holydays affected a larger number of the community than might be supposed in the first instance, and it would not be right to set the convenience of clerks against that of the public at large. One of the principal points for the Committee to consider would be how utterly impossible it would be, when there was an accumulation of business for three or four days, for the clerks to perform their duties. With regard to establishing a holyday by proclamation of the Queen in Council, he was inclined to think that that part of the Bill might be very fairly adopted, because on more than one occasion some inconvenience had arisen owing to the necessity of passing an Act of Parliament for the purpose.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he assented to the proposal that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. With regard to Scotland, it would be easy to make any exceptions which were thought necessary or desirable in the Bill. The holydays at present were Good Friday and Christmas Day, and the Bill only proposed to take one additional day—the day after Christmas. With respect to three days' bills falling due on that day, the slight inconvenience which might be created would only happen once every five years.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

LIFE POLICIES NOMINATION BILL.
(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. T. Hughes.)

[BILL 19.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of it was to enable persons effecting insurances upon their lives to nominate their wives and children to receive the benefit of such insurance at their death. The nomination would have to be endorsed upon the policy of assurance, and would have all the effect of a marriage settlement, whether ante-or postnuptial. At present the execution of a deed or marriage settlement in which trustees were to be appointed was often a very troublesome and expensive process; to a large class of persons in humble circumstances it was no easy matter to find trustees who would act for them, or whom they would readily trust to receive money after their death on the chance of their paying it to the right persons. He hoped to obviate it by the very simple operation under the Bill. The company would be made the trustees for the payment of the money, and would simply be directed to pay it to the persons indicated in the nomination, and in that way the whole trouble about marriage settlement would be avoided. The proposal was not a new one, for the principle was sanctioned already by the Friendly Societies Act with regard to policies under £50. The measure had been adopted in several of our colonies—it was the law of two of the Australian colonies, of Canada, and also of New York and Massachusetts. He had been told that in Canada the immediate effect of

953
the measure was the creation of a very large class of nomination policies, and within two months after the passing of the Act, one company, of which he had information, did twice as much business as in the two previous years. If this Bill passed, he had no doubt that a great extension of insurance business would take place in this country, especially in the case of small policies. The only objection he had heard to his proposal was that it would cause a little more trouble and expense to the insurance companies. That, however, would be more than compensated by the amount of new business that would be created. The only trouble would be the identification of persons to whom the money was to be paid. But by the recent extension of equitable jurisdiction to the county courts, a great many minor difficulties which might have existed under the old law would be obviated. The Bill, he believed, would be of great benefit to persons in moderate circumstances.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."—(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, they had heard of the difficulties which might arise to insurance companies if this Bill were carried, but nothing had been mentioned with regard to the difficulties which it might create as to creditors. He thought the title of the Bill ought to be, "A Bill to enable Persons to Provide for their Wives and Families at the expense of their Creditors." There was no limit to the scope of the Bill. The insurance might be for any amount, and therefore it equally applied to the upper classes and to small tradesmen, who might take the money out of their tills and pay for a life insurance, before they had provided for the satisfaction of their creditors, from whom they had obtained their stock in trade. There was no doubt a provision that if the insurer should become bankrupt or die insolvent within twelve months from the time of effecting the policy, the nomination should be void. But they all knew how easy it would be in many cases to avoid such a contingency; and if the bankruptcy or the death in insolvency should occur after that time, the creditor would have no remedy whatever, and a large sum of money might be settled upon the wives and families of persons who never had the means of effecting the insurance them-
954
selves. The operation of the Bill might also be most detrimental in regard to the insurers themselves, because it was provided in the Bill that the moment the nomination was made, no alteration could take place, find no assignment of the policy could be made, and therefore there would be no possibility on the part of the insurer of raising any money on the policy. He objected to the Bill on various grounds, and especially because it would create facilities for people to take the whole of their capital and place it out of the reach of their creditors; and they could speculate and gamble without running any risk whatever. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but when it came into Committee it would require most serious consideration, as it would, in its present form, affect to a great extent the commercial honesty of the country.
MR. BARNETTsaid, it was right the House should know that serious objections were urged against the Bill by persons deeply interested in life assurance. The petition against it which he had just had the honour to present was signed by the actuaries of nine large insurance offices, and those signatures were not merely individual signatures, but they had been made with the consent and approbation of the directors of the various companies. They were of opinion that though certain advantages might arise from nomination there were certain counterbalancing disadvantages. At present a person might assign his policy to trustees for the benefit of his family, which was often done with the larger class of policies, and he was inclined to think would still be done in preference to this principle of nomination. The great difficulty attending the proposed system of nomination would be of a legal character. The difficulty of obtaining proper discharges for policies endorsed as proposed would be very great. In the case of minors the Court of Chancery or the County Court might appoint trustees; but in the case of persons abroad becoming entitled to the amount of an insurance, it would be necessary to find out where they were, and to identify them properly when found; and there were other points which would make it very difficult for the companies to discharge the policies, and might lead to frequent litigation. The ready payment after death of the amount of a policy was one of the great inducements with persons in a certain class of life to make these provisions for their families,

955
and anything tending to impede or to delay that prompt payment would pro tanto interfere with the progress of life insurance. The extra trouble and expense and the difficulties with regard to payment must tell upon the offices. If the business of the offices were to be diminished, the profits would be diminished, and of course the assuring public would feel the loss. A certain portion of the premiums, beyond the actual measure of the risk of life, went to pay the office expenses and form a fund of profit, and if this were much reduced by increased expenditure it would cause great disappointment to insurers. He did not object to the second reading of the Bill, but when it came to be discussed in Committee he should feel it his duty to propose several alterations. The question would arise, whether some copy of the nomination should not be given to the offices, and he believed in the Bill of last year it was provided that some fee should be given to the offices for the registration of the nomination, and in some measure as a compensation for the additional trouble which would be created. The offices had a great objection to the responsibility of being made trustees for the insurances, and there might be some means of obviating that by nominating some one or two persons besides those who were to have the money, and they could give a valid discharge to the office upon the immediate payment of the money, undertaking themselves to find out and settle with the nominees who were to receive the money. One of the proposals contained in the Bill was that all bonuses should be added to the amount assured for the benefit of the nominees. But there were three large insurance companies whose constitution only entitled them to give a bonus by the reduction of the premium—a mode of operation which was very popular. Those were points, however, which would have to be settled in Committee, where the Bill would have to be carefully watched.
MR. NEATEsaid, that the object of the Bill was simply to obviate the expensive and cumbrous process of a deed of assignment by placing the nominees in the same position as they would occupy under such a deed. It was true, as the hon. Member for the City of London had pointed out, that the insurer, in nominating his wife and children to receive the amount of his insurance, precluded himself from being able to raise any money upon his policy. But that was a point for the insurer himself to
956
consider, and was no objection to the Bill. In the absence of any legal objection to the Bill from any legal authority, he did not think they could do otherwise than agree to the second reading.
MR. DENMANthought that his hon. Friend who had just spoken had not done full justice to the objection of the hon. Member for the City of London. That objection was that the Bill would facilitate operations unfavourable to creditors, and that it was not desirable to do anything of that kind. It was notorious that rich contractors, carrying on dangerously speculative business were in the habit of placing money out of the reach of their creditors for the benefit of their wives and families. Now this Bill would facilitate operations of that kind, which would be very undesirable. The Bill was not confined to small operations, nor to annual or periodical payments. A great contractor, carrying on works which might make him worth almost a million or leave him in debt to that amount, and who could put off insolvency for a year or two, would be enabled by this Bill, with no expense or trouble, to pay down £100,000 at once to insure his life on a policy which at his death would bring in £200,000, and thus to withdraw from risk a large part of the fund which ought to be available to his creditors. He did not consider such operations legitimate. If the Bill were limited to policies of a certain amount on which the premiums were paid from year to year, and were not permitted to extend to cases where enormous sums might be sunk in a policy, and so withdrawn from the reach of creditors, it might be a useful measure, and he begged to commend the points he had suggested to his hon. Friend the Member for Reading.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was ready to agree to the second reading of the Bill but many of its details would require considerable alteration, and more especially those which affected the interests of creditors. The 4th clause would enact that in the event of a nomination having taken place the money secured was to be absolutely free from payment to the creditors, provided the nominator had not been a bankrupt within a year of the nomination. Now it would be necessary to consider how far that provision was consistent with the existing Bankruptcy law. That, however, was a point which, with other details in the measure, would have to be carefully considered when it went into Committee.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREexplained that the Bill was intended to meet the cases of persons of small means, and not the cases of large policies, which were now dealt with by deeds of assignment.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL— [BILL 13.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Sir R. Palmer.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move the second reading of the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill; and as some considerable time has elapsed since this measure was introduced to the consideration of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to occupy a few minutes in giving a very simple description—and, as far as I can make it, not a polemical description—of its views and objects, and likewise of its position as a Parliamentary question. The hope with which this Bill was originally framed and introduced, and which I still cherish with no less cheerful a tone than that which I first entertained, was that we might by means of a measure of this kind procure—I will not say unanimity, or anything nearly approaching unanimity—upon a question of this description, which has been so long and so much controverted, but at all events such a concurrence of opinion as would give strong effect to the views and decision of the House of Commons, and as would promise the early settlement of the question, if not with universal, yet with general satisfaction. I thought that, as regarded those who may be called the church-rate abolitionists pure and simple, we should find upon their part a disposition to abate somewhat of the full purpose which they had had in view—at any rate to this extent, that we should fairly try the temper and opinion of the House of Commons upon a Bill of this nature. On the other hand, I likewise thought and hoped—and that hope had not been disappointed—that no inconsiderable number of Gentlemen sitting upon the opposite side of the House would, under the extreme difficulty of the case, be disposed to come some considerable way to meet us, and to adopt a measure of this kind as affording on the whole a satisfactory solution. In the course of a discussion which took place
958
in the House, in the year 1866, there were two Members, if I remember rightly, Gentlemen of station and influence in the House, who declared that they would prefer a measure of total abolition to such a measure as that which is now upon the table. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was one of those two Members. Well, I believe the choice is now before them—because it is quite evident that a Bill of this kind cannot be the object of prolonged contention from year to year. I could not expect of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), and of the large party, so to call them, whom upon this question he has so consistently and so ably represented, that they should abandon their own controversy for church rate abolition, with the prosecution and the attainment of their entire object in view, in order to launch themselves into another prolonged contest for a minor and a more limited purpose. All that I could ask of him and of those for whom he acts is, that they should make a fair experiment for the purpose of ascertaining the judgment of the House of Commons as to the practicability of settling this question by a measure of this kind; and if it should appear that there exists very largely upon the other side of the House a disposition to prefer total abolitition, why, no doubt, the majority of those who sit upon this side would also prefer total abolition. The consequence, therefore, of that declaration and of that state of sentiment would be that any scheme of this kind must very speedily pass out of view; while it was left to others to judge whether any consummation of the question except total abolition should be the one finally adopted. I must take this opportunity of rendering my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury for his willingness to make what he thinks a considerable abatement of his views for the sake of obtaining a wide if not a general support in this House, including no inconsiderable element of favour and approval from the opposite side. I must likewise express my strong sense of the liberal and conciliatory spirit in which—as I know from private and personal communications—many Gentlemen on the other side of the House have expressed their disposition to enter frankly on the consideration of the details of this Bill, with the view of making it, if possible, the basis of a legislative settlement of the question. It is therefore to be understood that this Bill may, at least so far

959
as I am concerned, be treated in a manner the reverse of polemical. It is intended to make a fair trial of the judgment of the House. I have every reason to believe that, with the dispositions that have been shown, it may be accepted; but should I have formed a false estimate of the temper and spirit of the House, I certainly shall no longer attempt to worry either the one side or the other by putting before them modes of arrangement which I myself may think practicable, but shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Bury to resume the position, without fetter or restraint, which he so long and so worthily occupied. What this Bill offers to Dissenters, as I take the matter, is the total and absolute abolition of the principle of compulsion; and it is for the sake of the attainment of that total and absolute abolition of the principle of compulsion that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and those who act with him—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) and others—have felt themselves justified in substituting this Bill pro tanto, and for the time, for the measure of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury. An idea has gone abroad that in the 5th and 6th clauses of the Bill, as they now stand, there has been a deviation from the view with which it was introduced, and a partial re-introduction of the principle of compulsion. I am very desirous to explain—not presuming myself to give any legal opinion, yet with the belief that I do not misrepresent the legal view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer)—I am very desirous to explain that there is no foundation whatever for that idea. As far as the Bill has undergone change since it was first introduced, it has undergone change, I admit, in the sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury. Some disabilities with which it was originally charged have been removed; and the disability has lastly been removed for serving the office of churchwarden, because on consideration we have felt that all we could reasonably ask of the House was, that those who subscribe to the fund under this Bill should have the management of the fund, and if they chose to appoint for that purpose a person who had not subscribed it is not our business to interfere with them. But as regards the 6th clause, I will not now enter into questions respecting its wording, which had better be reserved for the Committee on the Bill, and I will leave it to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) to
960
explain the legal effect of the phraseology. I may, however, state distinctly and unequivocally the object of the clause and the mode in which the necessity for such a provision has arisen. The object of the clause is to place the churchwarden or administrator of this voluntary fund, to which the name and form of a church rate are continued, in precisely that same position with respect to his personal liability as that which he would occupy if he were the treasurer of an association of persons combined for the maintenance of a dissenting chapel, or of an hospital, or of any other philanthropic institution whatever. The necessity for the clause arises out of the fact that the main enactment of the Bill is that contained in the first clause, which provides that no suit whatever shall lie in any Court for the purpose of enforcing or compelling the payment of a church rate made in any parish or place in England or Wales. Well, now, as I understand, if the treasurer, we will say, of a dissenting chapel—because that is perhaps the case most nearly analogous—has received from persons connected with the congregation, or others, the promise to subscribe certain sums for maintaining or improving the chapel, it is very doubtful what the legal position of those promises is so long as no proceedings have been taken upon the faith of them; but if upon the faith of these promises—they being definite and clear in their character—the treasurer has himself become liable by a contract for the payment of a certain sum, then he would undoubtedly be entitled in a Court of Equity to recover upon those promises the sums which had been engaged to be paid. We must, therefore, look to the fact that unless we introduce words to secure to the churchwarden in this particular case that power of recovery, he will be barred by the accidental and unintended operation of the words in the first clause of the Bill, which make it impossible to compel the payment of church rate, because the name and force of the rate would still be retained. The effect of the 6th clause, as I am advised, and, at any rate, its object, is to bring these payments, when the liability has been incurred for them, within the scope of the general law of contracts, and to provide that if they be promised on behalf of any voluntary institution, though they be promised in the name and form of church rates, they shall be contracts. That is, I hope, a clear and unequivocal explanation, showing that in principle and in aim these

961
clauses are in entire consistency with the original purposes of the Bill; and with regard to the terms of expression, to which no specific objection has as yet been made, there will be every disposition on the part of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) and myself to consider, if a change should be thought desirable, what other words can properly be substituted. I will now venture to state very briefly what, as I conceive, is the nature of the advantage this Bill will offer to persons connected with our parish churches as compared with the system of total abolition. There are many persons who are disposed to say that this is a compromise all upon one side, and that in abolishing compulsion you abolish church rates, and leave nothing which can be considered as an equivalent or a set-off against that abolition. That which I conceive to be an important advantage to be gained by this Bill is, that it will facilitate the extended use of a system which is even now more or less in use—namely, that system under which at the present moment—and even to my knowledge in certain cases in parishes of large population—the voluntary principle is substantially applied, and rates are levied without the smallest idea of resorting to the practice of compulsion. The Church and those connected with the parish church would, under this Bill have, I think, an undisturbed maintenance of their present methods of procedure in cases where the present methods of procedure give satisfaction to the population of the parish. Now I own I estimate myself as very considerable the value of that machinery. To town parishes and to populous parishes I admit the application of that opinion would be narrow and limited, because in those parishes it is not or ought not to be difficult to substitute a new machinery for the old one; but in the rural parishes where things go on from generation to generation with little change, where nearly all the ratepayers are agricultural occupiers, it seems to me that although the theoretical difference may be small the practical difference would be very great indeed, between a system which entirely and rudely shivered to fragments the existing machinery of church rates, and a system which leaves that machinery to operate, although upon a basis that is known and understood to be voluntary and free. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire observed with great truth, that although a church rate may be a just mea-
962
sure of legal liability as between man and man—that is in certain cases, for I could not assent to the proposition universally—yet it is by no means in the same degree a just measure of their capacity for free and voluntary contribution. I think there is great truth in that observation. It is an observation of exceedingly limited application, however, in agricultural parishes. But my answer to the right hon. Gentleman would be this, that if the circumstances of the parish be such as to make the form of church rate an inconvenient method for obtaining the subscriptions necessary for the purpose of the church, the remedy under the Bill is obvious—namely, that some other form of subscription may be adopted, and yet still the machinery of the vestry and of the appointed officers—that is to say, the churchwardens—will be available for that purpose. Perhaps I may be told that is a slight matter; but in my opinion it is very far from being a slight matter, for what is the case now in many parishes where church rates are virtually abolished, and where, with the abolition of the compulsory rate, the use of the old parochial machinery has disappeared? Why, in my opinion, one very great practical evil results, and it is that the secular business of obtaining funds for the maintenance of the fabric and the services of the church devolves in too many instances upon the already overburdened clergyman, and tends to make him in a still greater degree that which I own I think he is now in a degree much greater than is desirable—namely, a person drawn off from his spiritual duties by the absolute and stringent necessity of many occupations, which, however useful, are temporal in their character. I hold, therefore, that not only after the compulsory payment of church rates has been abolished, but even after it has been found that the form of church rate is inconvenient—namely, in the case contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, still it will be a great advantage that there should be a vestry and churchwardens to whom the clergyman would be entitled to look to bear these liabilities, and that he should not be subject to that great practical evil—acting in the first instance upon him, and through him upon the parishioners at large—of having his hands weakened for spiritual purposes in order that he may discharge duties of a very essential nature, but still not spiritual, but temporal in their character. Now, I think that upon the whole I may go one step further than that,

963
and say without treading upon any ground where differences of opinion, or, at any rate, differences of feeling, are likely to arise, that I contemplate with very great dissatisfaction whatever tends to disjoin the action of the clergyman, whether in the management of his church or in the management of his parish, from the counsel, the affection, the good will, and the approval of the laity; and that, I think, it a great advantage, instead of running the risk of driving the clergyman into a personal action with reference to the fabric of the Church, which, I fear, might be the effect in many parishes of total abolition, that you should leave him in contact with his parishioners, and allow them to assemble in a lawful, usual, and prescriptive manner, with reference to everything, that belongs to the attainment of these purposes. I have now, I think, sufficiently stated to the House the general views with which this Bill has been introduced, and my purpose in desiring to know, from what may take place upon the present occasion, and in the Committee on the Bill, whether the House is inclined to entertain it with a still larger amount of assent than that very large amount which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury has succeeded in obtaining for his more unrestricted measure. I will only make two further observations. In the first place, it is not the principle of the church rate that is now at issue, either upon this Bill or upon the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard). The principle of a church rate is, that as the fabric of the Church is intended for the benefit of the entire community, the entire community should be liable to its maintenance, and in like manner to the continuance of the services of the Church. It is not necessary to enter upon any argument with respect to that principle at a time when apparently the vast majority of the Members sitting on both sides of the House are not prepared to entertain it. But with reference to those who think that the surrender of that principle is in all cases likely to be either fatal or injurious to the existence of the National Establishment of religion, I hope I may be permitted to express this opinion, that unless the sore place of the vestry-cess in Ireland had been healed and closed up some thirty-five years ago by the resolute action of Lord Derby, when he, by the Church Temporalities Act, destroyed the principle of a Church Establishment for Ireland—so far as that principle is involved in a rate for the maintenance
964
of the fabric and for the services—it is highly probable that the Irish Church Establishment would not be in existence at this moment. Whether that is a recommendation or not of this method of proceeding, it is not necessary for me at the present moment to inquire. But speaking in the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), I own my personal opinion is that for all practical purposes the Church of England would be greatly—not weakened, but strengthened and confirmed, by removing wholly out of action and out of view all petty causes of irritation and disaffection, such as those which arise from time to time in the attempt to administer the law of church rates. I have endeavoured to state thus generally the purposes with which this Bill is offered to the House. I assure the House that it is not intended, as far as I am concerned, to be made an instrument for annoying or bewildering them with the multitude of recipes and remedies of different doctors prescribing for this inveterate and complicated disease. I wish to make a fair trial of the judgment of this House; and if the judgment of the House should, as I hope, be given by a large and preponderating expression of its sense in favour of a measure of this kind, I feel sure that obstacles to its success will not be raised elsewhere; but that the wisdom and the prudence which have so often governed the settlement of these matters will prevail, and that the Bill will become the means of effecting an early and, on the whole, a satisfactory termination of a too long protracted controversy.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had very fairly explained the objects of the Bill, and he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for setting in such a clear light many of the objections which he (Mr. Henley) had to the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had stated with great truth that his own Bill and that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hardcastle) were identical, so far as the doing away with church rates was concerned. He (Mr. Henley) would not touch upon that question, because with respect to that point his objection to both Bills was precisely similar. He would confine himself to an examination of the other part of the right

965
hon. Gentleman's Bill to see whether it would mitigate in any and in what degree the inconveniences of total abolition. He would state to the House why the provisions of the Bill now under consideration would, in his judgment, not only not mitigate these inconveniences, but would in reality throw difficulties in the way of such a mitigation. He would further give his reasons for thinking that the measure, instead of affording facilities for the establishment of a voluntary system would throw considerable difficulties in the way to such a consummation. The right hon. Gentleman had very fairly said that, in respect to the question of assessment, according to the present valuation, there might be cases where the law acted unjustly; but with a view to guard against that he desired to establish a mode of voluntary subscription. Such a system could of course be carried on according to the will of every one, and each could give what he pleased, and in that respect the objections might be got rid of. But he would ask the House what advantage would this Bill bestow, or in what better position would those persons be who desired voluntarily to subscribe than they would be without such a Bill? That was the real question which the right hon. Gentleman had to prove affirmatively. If people were not to be placed in a better position by reason of this measure than they would be without it there was no use for its introduction—it was clearly surplusage. He agreed that it was desirable that the parochial clergy or the clergy elsewhere should be relieved from the necessity and, it may be, the anxiety of maintaining the fabric of the Church. But it seemed rather odd to him that the right hon. Gentleman, entertaining that strong opinion, should propose to abolish church-rates, and thus aggravate the evil he deprecates. Let them look, however, to what the machinery of the Bill provided, and what advantage or disadvantage would be given to people who came forward to subscribe or submitted to a voluntary assessment. Voluntary rates were not unknown. When the amended Poor Law first came into operation many of the rural parishes voluntarily levied rates upon themselves for the relief of the poor. Voluntary rates in that way became quite common, and there was no difficulty in the way of their working. No Act of Parliament was required to regulate these rates, and no trouble or complaint arose out of them: and people simply paid their
966
proportion for the relief of the poor. But what had the right hon. Gentleman fastened upon this Bill? What did he do in order to induce people to become voluntary subscribers and assent to a voluntary assessment? He said that if any person did not pay after they had subscribed they should have the pleasure of going into the Court of Chancery. Was that a recommendation to induce persons to become subscribers, or would it not rather scare people from putting down their names to the subscription document; for every one of the subscribers must be made members to the suit. Was the example of the Nonconformists, who had occasionally suits in Chancery, an example or inducement to them to put their names to a paper by means of which, should they fail to pay, they might be involved in legal proceedings? Such a contingency would surely act rather as a preventive than an incentive to persons in the way of making them become subscribers. The right hon. Gentleman had stated no reason whatever why they would not be just as well able to accomplish what he desired as well without as with the machinery of an Act of Parliament, and surely if a man wished to subscribe he could give his money to a churchwarden or treasurer quite as well without this machinery as with it. The Court of Chancery in perspective would, as he had said, scare people. For himself, he would never put his name to a paper which might be the means of dragging him into the Court of Chancery, out of which he might never get in his life. That he conceived would also be the feeling of everyone throughout the country. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was quite distinct—that the remedy would lie in the Court of Chancery. Only one prospect could have been more disagreeable, and that was the risk of being dragged into the Ecclesiastical Court. Of the two evils he did not know which would be worse; but for either to be dangled before a man's eyes, in the event of A or B not paying, would certainly prevent his putting his name on paper. He rejected this Bill in the first place, because it advocated total abolition; and in the second place, because if they were to achieve the end desired by voluntary means, every parish had sense enough to make its own arrangements, without the cumbrous machinery of an Act of Parliament to aid them. He should certainly vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. GILPINtendered his cordial thanks to the right hon. Member for South Lancashire for introducing the Bill. He (Mr. Gilpin) would support the measure in all its stages, in the hope that when it got into Committee the provisions of the sixth clause would be very considerably modified, if not altogether altered. He thought the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire was perfectly right when he said that members of the Church of England would be far more able and willing to subscribe for their own worship voluntarily than by means of compulsion. When subscriptions were made among dissenting bodies no such thing was known as the tipstaff, the constable, or the threat of Chancery proceedings, in order to compel the payment of money that had been voluntarily promised. He did not conceive that the object of getting rid of church rates was the paltry £230,000 a year, but it was to relieve all places that were now subject to them from a bone of contention, from the heartburning, and the bitterness which they occasioned. He acknowledged the readiness with which the right hon. Member for South Lancashire had met the views of many who went much farther than himself, and he would accept the Bill as a compromise between the two sides of the House. They had the acknowledgment of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire that he would rather have a Bill for the total abolition of church rates. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were generally of that opinion, then, by all means, let the House again, by a large majority, sanction the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Bury.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that no man had more consistently opposed the total abolition of church rates than himself, and he had long looked forward to the introduction of a measure which would have afforded a fair and equitable settlement. Many Bills had been introduced, which had been opposed by the Gentlemen opposite. He could, however, no longer disguise from himself that the time, if not quite ripe, had now nearly come when the House, in justice to itself and the country in general, should make an effort to have this question satisfactorily settled. Although he could not agree to all the provisions of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought there was sufficient in it to enable him honestly to say that the Bill should be read a second time. Should that be done, when the measure went into Com-
968
mittee, both sides of the House, by mutual giving and taking, might so amend it as to settle a question which had distressed and agitated the minds of so many for a considerable time. He was sure that a great grievance would be removed by a settlement of this question, and that a great benefit would be conferred on the Church of England itself, to which he was firmly attached. That part of the question relating to rural parishes was very difficult, but it might be got over. He differed from his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, because he believed the machinery of the present Bill was well known in the rural districts, and it would be easier to raise church rates by that machinery than if they were totally abolished. He hoped the House would read the Bill a second time, feeling convinced, from the conciliatory spirit which had been evinced by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it, that they would be able to come to a practical solution of the question, advantageous to the Church as well as to the country.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The challenge which was delivered by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) imposes upon us who sit on this side of the House the duty of coming forward at an early period to declare our opinion upon this subject; because I understood him to say that he accepted this Bill as a compromise—generally accepted—rather than as being an exact representation of his own views upon the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire has adopted upon this Bill the tone which he adopted upon another and much greater question—namely, the tone of "All or nothing." I confess I feel myself wholly unable to follow the right hon. Gentlemen in that respect. I cannot banish from my mind—and I do not suppose that I ever shall be able to banish—the recollection that from the same hand an intermediate measure on another subject was offered to the House. That measure was rejected, and the consequence was that a very much larger measure was agreed to. For this reason I must look at this Bill not in the spirit of saying what it is that I should prefer absolutely, and resolving to stick by that and accept nothing else; but I must rather try to find out what is the best thing which, under the circumstances of the moment, I am likely to obtain for the Church to which I am attached, and to guide my course accordingly. If I could choose my course without regard to exter-

969
nal influences, I should say that the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) is the solution of the question I have always preferred; but, as I have said, we must look to the circumstances of the moment. I am distinctly of opinion that it is not true of this Bill that it is worse than total abolition. On the contrary, I think it is a great deal better, for it does offer certain advantages to the Church. The first and greatest is the preservation of the machinery under which church rates are collected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) seemed inclined to deny that there was any advantage in that. It is not a hypothetical question. In numbers of parishes, and those the most populous, church rates are at this moment collected solely by the aid of similar machinery, without any aid from any legal assistance whatever. It therefore follows that if you apply to the whole country that which is voluntarily applied to a considerable number of parishes, you would have not perhaps exactly the same advantage that you now have, but a very considerable advantage over the state of things that would result from total abolition. The right hon. Gentleman went into an imaginary description of the horrors that would result from bringing the Court of Chancery upon the scene. Now the right hon. Gentleman, although possessed of many high qualities, has not hitherto been distinguished for the fervour of his imagination; but I must say that in the present instance he has exercised that faculty with the most unbridled license. Why, the only thing proposed to be done by this Bill is to put those who offer to subscribe for church rates upon the same footing as those who subscribe to the Propagation Society, the Church Missionary and other societies; and as to the remedies of the law, to allow them to stand upon exactly the same footing! The right hon. Gentleman says that the fear of the Court of Chancery would deter people from subscribing to church rates. I would ask him whether that fear diminishes the subscription lists of the great societies to which I have referred? The Bill says in so many words that the liabilities to be imposed shall be exactly the same as in the case of every other contract of the same kind. It is not an enactment clause; it is a clause disclaiming enactment or any change in the law. There is one other advantage in this Bill over total abolition which I approve
970
of highly, and that is that those who subscribe money should have the spending of it. It is an elementary principle of justice that it should be so. In all the discussions which we have had upon church rates I have always thought that the other side have been hardly pressed by the argument that it was unjust that those who take no part in subscribing towards the fund should yet have the power of determining how it should be spent. This, then, I regard as a very considerable advantage, because under this Bill that will be obviated. Under these circumstances, weighing this Bill against the Bill for the total abolition, I am compelled to say that this is much the better of the two. Then I must ask myself the question, whether by resisting this Bill, or the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), I am likely to gain any advantage for the Church? What shall we gain if we adhere to the principle of "No surrender" upon the subject? That is the question, which you must answer by looking at it in the light of the circumstances of the time. You must look not only to the disposition of the nation out of doors, but at the course of events in this House, the principles upon which parties guide their movements, and the laws by which public men regulate their conduct; and looking to, and having regard to all these things, I am bound to say, taking the most impartial view I can upon the subject, I do not think the Church will gain anything by prolonging this contest. I do not conceal for a moment the reluctance with which I give up anything which the Church possesses; but I am bound to look to both sides of the question, and not to content myself with stolid opposition, and refuse to give way to that tendency by which it seems to me so many of us are apt to be affected, of pursuing for many years a steady obstruction, and then giving way to an unreasonable panic. I think, therefore, it is wiser to accept the terms now offered, because I am distinctly of opinion that we may go further and fare worse.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had used a most remarkable illustration in support of the Bill for the abolition of church rates, which was before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that the abolition of the vestry-cess in Ireland had saved the Irish Establishment of the United Church, and inferred that the abolition of church rates

971
would be equally salutary to the Church in England. But he (Mr. Newdegate) begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered the position of the Church in Ireland safe at present? He would beg to refer the right hon. Gentleman to those who were urging him forward in his present course in seeking to abolish church rates unconditionally, whether they considered the Establishment of the Church in Ireland safe; every one knew that they would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Establishment of the Church in Ireland was condemned, was tottering to its fall, and that they rejoiced in the prospect of its destruction. That was, indeed, a most pregnant illustration. Two Members had spoken who hitherto had been opposed to the principle of abolishing church rates, but who now of a sudden seemed determined to make a clean sweep of the whole matter, and that, too, without waiting for the intervention of that Reformed Parliament which, as was generally contended, would be able to deal more satisfactorily and in a more strictly national sense with such questions, as more directly representing the people. That Parliament could scarcely do more than was now proposed on this subject, even if so disposed, which he (Mr. Newdegate) very greatly doubted. They had been told that great Parliamentary changes should be made by the Reformed Parliament, and he could not see that they were justified in taking out of the hands of the Reformed Parliament these important Parliamentary functions. With his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) he confessed he preferred the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) to this Bill, and he did so because that Bill would leave the vestries unimpaired—the representation of the inhabitants of each parish whole and efficient—to regulate the affairs and maintain the rubrics and services of their own respective parish churches. And it was notorious that not only had the Church of England to contend with the adversaries of the Establishment, and with the difficulties which had arisen from the objections of Dissenters, but she had to contend with the narrow spirit of ecclesiasticism and sacerdotalism within her own pale; and that was the reason why he looked with extreme suspicion upon every attempt to impair the power of the vestry, which, both by this Bill and by the Bill of the hon. Members for Stoke-upon-Trent and Buckingham, would be superseded by another
972
organization for which provision was made by those measures. By this Bill they constituted out of the vestry what was called a voluntary association, and its organ was to be the churchwarden or any other person this quasi voluntary association might employ, and to that churchwarden or treasurer would be transferred the whole of the authority hitherto exercised by the inhabitants in vestry—namely, the authority affecting the internal and external management of the church, and all questions involved in the services of the church. Neither Dissenting bodies who managed their own chapels nor voluntary associations were armed with the powers by law which this Bill proposed to transfer year by year from the great body of the parishioners, represented by the vestry, to these voluntary associations. It was perfectly idle to blink the whole bearings of this question. Suppose a parish in which a certain number, perhaps a small number, of wealthy persons met, and they succeeded in carrying a very high rate of assessment. It might be said that there was no inducement so to do; but the inducement was a distinct inducement, as by thus taxing themselves they rendered it, under the provisions of this Bill, eminently improbable that the other parishioners would come in and pay as much; and if they did not pay as much the whole assessment, the administration of the fabric of the church would fall into the hands of a small and expensive minority. Total abolition he regarded as eminently unjust, because it would deprive the parishioners of a power which they had exercised for centuries upon centuries in having a voice in the application of the share in the property of the parish which they possessed for the maintenance of the fabric and the ministrations of the Church; and, as a layman, he would ever protest against the parishes being deprived of that property and that authority which they had by law possessed for centuries. His own Bill before the House provided a substitute for church rate, and claimed for the parishioners and the great body of the laity a portion of their ancient right. He regarded the present proposal as unjust, because it robbed the poorer even more than it robbed the wealthy laity of the Church of England; and the same charge was applicable to the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury. But this Bill not only deprived the laity of the Church of England—the poorer class of laity—of

973
the property which had been their right for centuries, but a new body was substituted to supersede them in the management of the fabric of the church and of the services, and the House was invited to bring all the powers of the law, common and ecclesiastical, to bear upon the inhabitants, while transferring the power hitherto vested in them into the hands of a voluntary association, of which nothing was known in the various parishes. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, that if it was the will of Parliament to deprive the laity and the poorer class of laity—the tenantry and small cottiers—of their legitimate right in the property of the parish for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of their church, at least they should be left in the control of their church according to law, when in vestry assembled; the authority of officers whom they had elected for centuries should not be swept away, or the manner in which the services of their church should be conducted be prescribed by an alien body. At all events the laity, if they were placed in the position of Dissenters, ought not to be crippled or bound, further than at present, by provisions of the law.
MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, that from his connection with this subject for several years he might be expected to express an opinion upon it. When he first saw this Bill he had considerable doubt as to some of its provisions; but he begged to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire for the clearness with which he had explained away those doubts. On the principle of attachment to kindred it might be supposed that he preferred his own child to that of the right hon. Gentleman; but under all the circumstances he felt it would ill become him to stand in the way of what seemed likely to be a settlement of this long-vexed question. The machinery of this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire complained of as cumbrous, was really the exact machinery which the right hon. Gentleman had been defending in connection with the existing church rates, and he could not see how it would become more cumbrous than it was now. Church rates would be collected from those only who were willing to pay. The returns on church rates were not quite accurate, because there were many parishes put down as paying church rates on compulsion which did not do so on com-
974
pulsion at all. As to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, it only remained for him to express general satisfaction with it. It was not for him to presume to compliment the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) upon his short but remarkable speech; but he (Mr. Hardcastle) had never seen more clearly than in the speech of the noble Lord the distinction between the mere politician and the statesman. The noble Lord, up to this time, had consistently opposed the abolition of church rates, and he now supported a measure which virtually included that abolition, and the noble Lord did so from sentiments which he thought did not only his feelings but his understanding the highest honour.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, that it had been his desire that his own Bill should come before the House on the present occasion, but after comparing it with that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) he was unable to say that he could vote against the second reading. The two measures seemed to have been drawn under the same idea, although they varied in the course of procedure. His own motive was to relieve Dissenters from pecuniary liability, and to give them exemption in a manner the most simple and least inconvenient to Churchmen. The present Bill, no doubt, involved the subversion of a great system of rating which had existed from time immemorial, but the circumstances of the country had also changed. It was to be admitted that the ordinary mode of levying a rate was hardly compatible with the spirit of religious liberty, because it enforced upon all payment for an object which was common only to a few. There were only two courses to pursue—either to abolish church rates altogether, and unconditionally, or to adopt some mode of exempting from the payment of church rates those who felt themselves aggrieved by paying. His difference with his right hon. Friend was more in words than meaning. He could not get over his repugnance to the word "abolition" in the Bill, but if his right hon. Friend meant the abolition of compulsory payment of rates, and not the abolition of compulsory rates, they would be entirely at one. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) that simple abolition would be an advantage over the present plan. He believed that if the machinery of the present Bill were properly and judiciously handled, church rates would be collected with almost the same certainty

975
and success as in times past. His right hon. Friend was under a misapprehension in thinking that under the sixth clause suits in Chancery might be held in terrorem over the heads of subscribers to church rates. That clause was indispensable to the action of the Bill, because persons might enrol themselves as subscribers to the church rate and then refuse to pay. It was necessary that those who were to administer the fund should be able to rely on receiving the sums promised to them. He believed there would be very few cases in which the promises made would be falsified, but the obligation to pay ought to be maintained as a legal obligation. Last year the right hon. Gentleman's Bill had a clause incapacitating persons who did not subscribe to the rate from claiming, as a right, a seat in the parish church. He could not agree with that clause, and he was glad it was withdrawn from the present Bill. It would be unfortunate to perpetuate and intensify such differences. He was ready to say let the Bill be rend a second time; but he trusted that the House would permit his own Bill to come under the consideration of the Committee when the present Bill arrived at that stage, believing, as he did, that there were some points in regard to the payment of rates in which his own Bill might be advantageously followed. He wished to add that, in his anxiety to see this question settled, he was by no means acting under the horror of a Reformed Parliament. He believed that if that Parliament could be trusted at all, it was upon this, which was essentially a poor man's question. The battle they were fighting was to have the churches open without fee and without payment to the labouring poor; and their dread was lest, by removing the obligation which had for so many years rested on property, they might be endangering the right of the poor to the free use of their churches. He should give his assent to the second reading, trusting to see some expressions in the Bill altered in Committee. He hoped the House would permit his own Bill to come under the consideration of the same Select Committee, believing, as he did, that there were some points of detail in which his Bill might be followed with advantage.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was very inconvenient that the debate should have gone on so long without some expression of the view taken of the Bill by Her Majesty's Government. Hon. Members opposite were rather unreasonable in dealing with the
976
question. In former debates they protested against the abolition of church rates without some substitute being made in the shape of consequential provisions; but now that a Bill was brought in abolishing church rates, and making consequential provisions, hon. Members said they would prefer a Bill of total abolition. He thought that his right hon. Friend deserved the thanks of the House for the Bill he had introduced. He had, in the least objectionable manner, endeavoured to make the new arrangement harmonize as much as possible with those which already exist. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill excluded the voluntary system; it gave power, on the contrary, to raise a voluntary rate or a voluntary subscription instead of a rate, and it provided machinery for administering the fund. The principle of the Bill was that when a man promised he should be made to pay, and this was only common honesty. Neither did he see any reason for fearing that it would land men in a Chancery suit, to subscribe or not, as they chose. There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend, and that was the necessity of taking precautions in Committee against the danger of wealthy persons getting the control of the parish church and introducing therein practices repugnant to the Protestant feeling of this country. He felt sure that nothing could be further from the intention of his right hon. Friend than to promote the diffusion of such practices; but there was a perverseness on the part of some clergymen which led them to take advantage of any opportunities presented to them of offending the religious convictions of the people. The effect in such cases was that the parishioners so offended did not care to take the matter into an ecclesiastical court, but simply left their parish church; and more was being done by clergymen to undermine the Established Church than by all the Dissenting communities, who often, indeed, in their chapels, provided Churchmen with those means of participating in a real Protestant worship which were now denied them in their own parish churches. It was a grave reflection upon Churchmen that their ministers were not able to obtain from the spontaneous offerings of their congregations the means of carrying on the ministrations of the Church. What could be more anomalous than the fact that £6,000,000 sterling were annually spent in intoxicating drinks, while ministers of the Church were unable to obtain, without

977
compulsory church rates, the means of performing the sacraments of the Church. He thought the Bill ought to be read a second time.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) has called upon some Member of the Government to express an opinion on this Bill; and I certainly did not mean to allow this debate, at the whole of which I have been present, to close without expressing the opinion, I will not say of the Government, but my own opinion, and also that of my Colleagues who are here—although I am bound to say that I have not gone into special consultation with them on the subject—upon the provisions of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Bill has introduced it in a tone which has been acknowledged, as well from this side of the House as from his own, as well calculated to bring together those who are anxious to come to some compromise on this question. With respect to my own position on this subject, I may say that I have steadily and consistently voted against the abolition of church rates whenever proposed in the bare form in which it has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) and others; and I always should vote against a Bill assuming that shape. The part which was taken on this subject by my right hon. Friend who preceded me at the Home Office (Mr. Walpole) in 1859 was to produce a Bill similar to that advocated by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard)—that is to say, one giving Dissenters, or anybody else who claimed it, exemption from church rates by putting the negative duty of objecting upon the Dissenters or others who should claim such exemption, whereas, in the present Bill, as I understand it, a change is made which is recognized by the hon. Member for Buckingham—namely, that the positive duty of coming forward as Churchman is put upon Churchmen, instead of leaving the Dissenters or objectors to come forward and deny their liability to church rates. As I understand this Bill, whoever joins in the poll, whether in the majority or the minority, is to have signed his name to a declaration that he will be bound by the decision of the majority, and that, if it is so decided, he will pay the amount of his assessment or an equivalent voluntary contribution. I am bound to say that in my opinion, with respect to a great
978
number of the parishes of this country, this Bill, if passed, would never come into operation. The fact is, that there are not those meetings which are supposed by this measure to exist. In the majority of the parishes where church rates are regularly collected, I believe that none but the Churchwardens go to the vestry and levy the rate, because nobody else thinks it worth his while to go there, and there is not a division upon the question. I have always thought that the outcry raised against church rates was an exaggerated one; that where those rates are felt to be a grievance they cease by resolution of the vestry itself; and that in other cases they are collected without any of that bitterness of feeling and those heartburnings which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), in the vividness of his imagination, has conjured up. I think that those discussions which take place in London as to what occurs in the country are founded on very isolated cases, and not upon the general run of church rate levies throughout the kingdom. In my opinion, if this Bill arrives at the Committee, it will be found that a necessity exists—both in the sense indicated by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and also in that expressed by some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House—for re-considering its clauses in many respects. We are likewise entitled to ask that the right hon. Gentleman, if we allow the Bill to be read the second time and to get into Committee, shall fix the Committee upon it for a day subsequent to the discussion upon the other Church Rate Bills now on the Paper, so that there may be a full consideration of the whole question raised by these measures. [Mr. GLADSTONE nodded assent.] I am ready to grant a second reading to the Bill on such an understanding. I assented to the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) in 1859, and was, in fact, a Member of the Government by which it was brought in. This measure involves a question of changing the position of the parties—that is, it makes the Churchman come forward affirmatively, and then puts the compulsion upon him, instead of requiring the Dissenter to come forward and negative his liability, and thus obtain exemption. I still adhere to my opinion that church rates are not a grievance to the country; that they might still be levied by resolution of the vestry without being such a grievance; and in assenting to the second reading of this Bill, with a view to a settlement, if

979
practicable, I retain that opinion, and should be ready to pronounce it if occasion arose.
MR. SCOURFIELDquite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) in regard to the maxim of "All or nothing." He thought it extremely desirable that some organization should exist by which the means of effecting the annual average repairs required by parish churches would be provided. However well the voluntary principle worked in certain cases, it was not uniformly applicable. It often happened that a church was neglected and allowed to fall into serious decay, rather than ask the people for the requisite sums to keep it wind and water-tight. Then when the building was in ruins, a large amount had to be all at once raised by the new system of bazaars combined with the old system of "boring" people for subscriptions, which would never have been needed if the common repairs had been made from time to time. A moderate application of the principle of pew-rents, while retaining a sufficient number of free sittings, might, he thought, help the solution of that question. He thought some of the claims of the Dissenters were reasonable, and others unreasonable. He was opposed to the total abolition of church rates without any substitute whatever; but he did not share the alarm which the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had expressed as to "Chancery suits." If the only alternative presented to him was total abolition, or the Bill now before the House, he should prefer to vote for the latter.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction at the manner in which this Bill had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the Bill might lead to a very satisfactory compromise. He was also glad that the Government had acceded to the second reading of the Bill. The subject had been for too many years under discussion; a number of Bills had been brought in with the view of arriving at a settlement of the question, and he thought it had better not be left to the tender mercies of the reformed Parliament. The power of the present law was exercised in very few cases indeed. He knew the case of a parish where the church was restored, the services during the time of restoration being conducted in one of the public buildings in town. The expense was provided for by a weekly offertory, which was found to work
980
so well, that when the parish church was completed, the practice was continued, and from this source a sum was obtained which was likely to amount to £150 a year. This plan might become applicable to town parishes; but with respect to rural parishes the case seemed to be very different, for there it would be found that church rates had been collected for centuries, and that no one had refused to pay them. He thought this Bill might operate so as to cause hardship in the case of certain of the parochial clergy, upon whom the burden of the repairs would fall if funds were not otherwise provided. He should be glad if, in such cases, there could be a relaxation of the law of mortmain, or if a remedy could be applied by applying the provisions of the Lands Improvement Act to the Church. One or two other additional provisions might be introduced. It would be well to provide that the incumbent should have the right to nominate one churchwarden. He should be glad to see the House go into Committee on this Bill. He hoped the result would be a settlement of the question, which he was sure would render the Church stronger.
MR. P. A. TAYLORagreed with every word contained in the straightforward speech of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne), and with the eulogy passed upon the noble Lord by the hon. Member for Bury, just because it kept in view the main object of the noble Lord, without too closely questioning what, under other circumstances, he would prefer. What were the objects the noble Lord desired to obtain? They were to postpone as far as possible the time when there would be a separation of Church and State, to uphold the supremacy of one class over another, and keep up the machinery of coercion after the time for using it had passed away. However, he (Mr. Taylor) desired that the separation of Church and State should take place, and he hoped the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would not pass, but that the matter would be relegated to a Reformed Parliament. He should vote against the Bill on the ground that he believed that the Church would "go further and fare worse."
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEsaid, that, taking as he did a great interest in the question, and having for the last two years proposed clauses much resembling those contained in this Bill, he felt gratified at the course the present debate had taken. He thought that the Bill was likely

981
to prove a useful measure by extinguishing sources of discord; though he might wish for one more extensive in scope. He trusted that the clergy would not be misled by the views of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, or be influenced by the chimera he had conjured up in regard to the Court of Chancery. In all those parishes which were blessed with a faithful ministry the clergy would, he believed, find themselves effectually supported under the provisions of that Bill. He felt sure the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would work satisfactorily.
MR. WALRONDwas rejoiced to find that the Government would not assist those hon. Members who had spoken against that Bill in pressing for a division upon its second reading. No charge upon property could carry with it a stronger prescriptive claim than church rates; but there was a time, when yielding to the conscientious convictions of one's opponent was a wise policy, and he thought that time had now arrived in regard to that question, and he trusted, from the general tone and the temper of the House, that no serious opposition would be offered to the passing of that measure. He believed that both Nonconformists and Churchmen had many objects of social importance in which they felt a common interest, but upon which they could not act well together if the bar which at present existed were allowed to continue between the two bodies. If it were removed, they might then have that united harmony of action which would be of so much advantage to the country. Under these circumstances, he cordially wished success to the measure of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEwas of opinion that they ought to get rid of church rates altogether, regretted that that Bill had met with so much sanction on both sides of the House. For the very reason which induced the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne) to agree to the measure, he was inclined to disagree with it. He wanted the total abolition of church rates; and believed that if the pressure hitherto applied to hon. Gentlemen opposite for that object had been vigorously continued, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have yielded on that question in as graceful a manner as they had done in regard to Parliamentary Reform; but when the Leaders on both sides united, as they frequently did, to oppose all progress and all that was good, independent Members like
982
himself were, of course, obliged to give way.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday, 11th March.

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
(The Earl of Mayo, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Attorney General.)

[BILL 28.] THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the statement he made on the previous evening in reference to the case of the prisoner Matthew Lynch, who died in Mountjoy prison, was founded upon the information of a citizen of Dublin who had sent him a copy of the Freeman's Journal containing a communication on the subject. He hoped that the case would receive proper attention, and that the Government would place on the table of the House the notes of the Coroner, and also the report of Mr. Macfarlane, the Government Inspector of prisons, who was present at the inquest. He begged to explain that he had no charge to make against the Government in reference to the matter; and that his object in calling the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—than whom there could not be a more humane and honourable man—to it, was that no sanction should be given to negligence or cruelty to a prisoner on the part of a Government officer.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was absent from the House, had already written to Dublin on the subject; all the information he possessed in regard to it being that obtained from the newspapers; and, no doubt, when he received a reply, he would communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
Motion agreed to; Bill read the third time, and passed.

ARMY—WOODEN HUTS FOR TROOPS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to move for an Address for a Copy of all Correspondence between Government and the Medical Men or Officers in the command of Regiments stationed at Aldershot,

  983
  Shorncliffe, and Colchester, as to the impolicy and hardship of keeping in Wooden Huts during this severe winter old rheumatic soldiers from hot climates and young recruits. These huts were neither air-tight nor water-tight, and he had it from an officer that he woke one morning and found his head covered with snow. During the winter the men suffered very severely. The Secretary for War had not only promised that the subject should receive immediate consideration, but had led them to believe that the men should not remain in the huts during the winter; but they had been completely disappointed, and if the Government did not redress the evil, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject before the House.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYthought this was one of those evils which tended to make the service unpopular, and hoped that, in the event of the Secretary for War not dispensing with the use of the huts in the winter, the hon. and gallant Member would persevere in taking the sense of the House upon the question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for "Copy of all Correspondence between Government and the Medical Men or Officers in the command of Regiments stationed at Aldershot, Shorncliffe, and Colchester, as to the impolicy and hardship of keeping in Wooden Huts, during this severe winter, old rheumatic soldiers from hot climates and young recruits."—(Colonel French.)

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENTS OF THE HOUSE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider whether any alteration could be made in the arrangements of the House, so as to enable a greater number of Members to hear and take part in the proceedings. The House would recollect that the Committee appointed last year to consider that subject took a certain amount of evidence and had certain plans laid before them; but, in consequence of the lateness of the Session and the difficulties of the question, they found it impossible to come to any definite report. They accordingly unanimously agreed only to report the evidence, and to recommend that the Committee should be re-appointed. In pursuance of that recommendation he made the present Motion, and he proposed that the instructions to the Committee should be the same as those of last Session.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the Motion now made by his right hon. Friend was somewhat different from the Notice he had placed upon the Paper. He (Colonel French) hoped the Committee would not confine their inquiries to the House itself, but that they would take into consideration the expediency of making alterations in the refreshment department and other parts of the building, with the view to their improvement, and the greater convenience of hon. Members.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the Instruction to the Committee was to consider the arrangements of the several rooms and offices of the House.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that there was a danger in heaping too much work upon the shoulders of the Committee. It appeared to him to be far better to appoint two separate Committees to investigate all the matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was sure that the experience of everybody proved that, when Committees were overloaded with subjects, they never arrived at satisfactory decisions.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if two such Committees were appointed they might come to conclusions with respect to the alterations to be made in the building which would be entirely at variance. He was, besides, of opinion that the Committee, for the re-appointment of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved, would have no difficulty in dealing with improvements of the kind suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to consider whether any alteration can be made in the arrangements of the House of Commons, so as to enable a greater number of Members to hear and take part in the proceedings; and to consider the arrangement of the several rooms and offices attached to the House, and the means of access to the same, with a view to the greater convenience of Members in the discharge of their duties, and how better accommodation can be provided within the precincts of the House for the transaction of Departmental Business, during the Sittings of the House, by Members holding Offices in the Government."—(Mr. Headlam.)
  And, on March 6, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. HEADLAM, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. WILLIAM COWPER, Mr. TITE, Mr. BAZLEY, Viscount CRANBORNE, Mr. HANKEY, Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE, Lord ELCHO, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE, Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH, Mr. JOHN BRIGHT, Sir CHARLES LANYON, and Mr. BERESFORD HOPE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at Four o'clock.