Commons Sitting of 28 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246].
Report—District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246].
Considered as amended—Poor Relief [186]; District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246].
Third Reading—Poor Relief [186]; District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

UNITED STATES—LIBRARY COMMITTEE OF PHILADELPHIA.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence relative to the recent restoration of certain State Papers to the British Government by the Library Committee of Philadelphia, in the United States of America, and whether any and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to mark their sense of the liberality of the Library Committee?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he would be very happy to lay upon the table the Correspondence to which the lion. Member had alluded. A set, as far as published, of the Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Calendars of State Papers, with fac-similes in photozincography of the Domesday Book and other national manuscripts, being in all 156 volumes, uniformly bound, was sent to the Philadelphia Library Committee by the Lords of the Treasury in grateful acknowledgment of the honourable and disinterested feelings which prompted their gift. The Directors have returned thanks to Her Majesty's Government for this munificent donation.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table any official acknowledgment of "the discernment and judicious course of action" whereby, as stated by the Master of the Rolls, five valuable volumes of original State Papers, tempore James I., were recovered by Mr. Hepworth Dixon for the benefit of the nation?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had inquired into the subject, but could not find that there had been any Correspondence or communication between Mr. Hepworth Dixon and the Lords of the Treasury with reference to this matter. The remark of the hon. Member was correct that the Master of the Rolls in his; published Report had stated that it was entirely owing to the zealous activity of Mr. Hepworth Dixon that these valuable muniments had been restored to the British nation.

ARMY—WIMBLEDON MEETING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Corporal Peake, who won the Prize at Wimbledon, but of which he is reported to have been deprived, will be otherwise rewarded; and in the event of a non-regulation wad having been used and contributed to his success, whether that wad will be introduced into the Service?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,in reply, said, he was unable to answer the Question of the hon. Member. The shooting for the prizes at Wimbledon was carried on under the management of the National Rifle Association, which was a private society, and not in any way connected with the War Office, and therefore he had no official knowledge of what had occurred on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member.

ARMY—MARCH OF TROOPS FROM ALDERSHOT TO SANDHURST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must request permission to answer a Question which had been put to him yesterday by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), which he was then unable to answer from want of information on the subject. The hon. Member asked him whether it was true that during the march of a flying squadron from Aldershot nine

  1903
  men had been attacked by sunstroke, and upwards of eighty-seven men sent to the hospital in consequence of sickness caused by the intensity of the heat? He had informed the hon. Member yesterday that he had at that time received no information upon the subject, but that he would make it his duty to ascertain what the real facts of the case were. He had that morning received a letter from Sir James Yorke Scarlett, Commander-in-Chief at Aldershot, in which that gallant officer stated his great regret that such exaggerated statements should have found their way into the public newspapers. He held in his hand a telegram which had been received from Aldershot yesterday evening, and sent by Sir James Yorke Scarlett, which stated that during the three days that the flying squadron was on the march only three men were sent into the hospital, that no cases of sunstroke had occurred, and that there was only one slight surgical case. It would be recollected that the heat on the first day of the march was very great, but he was happy to say that all the cases of sickness were of a most trifling character.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had received information that on a late occasion, when the Household Brigade was inspected at Wormwood Scrubs, six men had to be carried off the ground and eight others were sent to the hospital?
  SIR JOHN PAKIGTONsaid, he had received no information upon the subject of the hon. Member's Question. He would make inquiry into the matter, and he trusted that the statement would prove equally unfounded with that to which he had just referred.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 135.]
(Mr. Walpole, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 135.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords into this Bill were four in number. By the first of those Amendments the time allowed to the Governing Bodies of the Public Schools as constituted by the Bill for exercising their power of proposing new Governing Bodies was extended from the 1st of January, 1869, to the 1st of May in that year, provision being made for a month's further extension by an Order in Council. To
  1904
  this Amendment he had no objection to offer. The second Amendment empowered the Governing Bodies to found exhibitions to be endowed out of the property of the Schools. To this also he had no objection to offer. The third Amendment, of which he also approved, referred to Westminster School. The House would remember that originally a sum of not less than £3,500, and not more than £4,000, was to be given by the Chapter for the purposes of the School, and certain buildings were to be assigned for its benefit. The Lords had, with the full concurrence of the Chapter and the governing body of the School, altered that provision, in order to make it more effectual. The School might now receive a sum of not less than £4,000, and the difference between the £3,500 and the £4,000 would be capitalized for the benefit of the school during the life-interest of certain persons who have houses to be assigned to the School. The fourth and last of the Amendments altered the number of the Special Commissioners from seven to nine, by adding to the names already agreed upon those of Canon Blakesley and Sir Boundell Palmer. There could be no difference of opinion with respect to the eminent fitness of these two gentlemen for the office; but he might express his conviction that nine was too large a working number; and that, by the addition, the balance of the Commission, both political and professional, would be very materially disturbed. He should move, therefore, that the Lords' Amendments be agreed to, with this exception; and that the fourth Amendment be disagreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the Bill, as far as regarded the number of the Special Commissioners, as it was sent up by them to the House of Lords. He thought that course would be more likely to give general satisfaction.
  Amendments agreed to, as far as the Amendment in page 9, line 4.
  Page 9, line 10, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEadmitted that if it had been desirable to increase the number of the Special Commissioners the names added by the House of Lords would deserve very respectful consideration. But it was from the first thought desirable to limit the Commission to seven Members; and that proposition, after

  1905
  being carefully considered by the Government, had been accepted by the House, and he thought it would be undesirable to disturb it, even by adding to the Commission two such distinguished names as those which had been proposed. He therefore thought they had better adhere to the arrangement made by the Select Committee, and in that view his Colleagues agreed. He moved that the House should disagree with the Lords' Amendment, which proposed to add to the Commission.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote). It must have been a strong sentiment which had influenced the other House in the matter. He could not believe that the two additional Members added to the Commission by the House of Lords would render the number of Commissioners excessive; and the two names which had been chosen were those of men of distinguished eminence. Probably among the whole of the graduates of Cambridge University there was not one more thoroughly qualified to deal with questions of the nature referred to the Commission than Canon Blakesley, or who by his attainments occupied a more conspicuous position in the world of science. It would, he believed, be a serious loss to the public service, and a great disadvantage to the Public Schools themselves, if they had not upon the Commission the benefit of Canon Blakesley's services. The reason why his name, which had been originally on the list, was struck off, was because St. Paul's School, of which he was an almoner, having been exempted from the operation of the Commission, it was supposed that his name, as representing the School, ought no longer to be retained. That, however, was a great mistake, for it was not in any such representative capacity that he had been originally chosen; and the House of Lords, by a great majority, restored the name, in conjunction with that of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer). Having himself been first to a Public School and afterwards to Cambridge, he was in a position to speak confidently as to the reputation of Canon Blakesley, and the esteem in which his attainments were held. He (Mr. Bouverie) should divide the House upon the Motion.
  MR. POWELL,as a Member of the Select Committee, denied that Canon Blakesley's name had been omitted because St. Paul's School had first been removed from the list. There were other considerations, by no means disrespectful to Canon Blakesley, but arising from the desire to have a well-balanced Commission, which should fairly represent the different views entertained with reference to education, without giving a preponderance to any. He was quite certain that, as at present constituted, advanced views would have great power in the Commission.
  MR. NEWDEGATE,as an Oxford man, thought that the addition of the name of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) to the Commission would give increased confidence in the operation of that body to those who were connected with the University of Oxford and to many Members of this House. He therefore trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not persevere in their opposition to the Amendment. That opposition had the appearance of a party opposition, and there was no reason whatever for differing from the House of Lords in the matter. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered the distinguished part which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond took in the discussions on the Oxford University Bill, and the great majority of Oxford men felt very grateful to him for the part he took upon that discussion. They found in the hon. and learned Member a person imbued with the spirit of industry, and in every way competent by attainments and ability to deal with the subject of the regulation of the University to which he belonged. As a man who had been to these Public Schools, and as connected with the Governing Body of one of them, he (Mr. Newdegate) most emphatically asserted that there would be greater confidence placed in the constitution of the Commission, and that its operations would carry greater weight if the name of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was, according to the recommendation of the House of Lords, retained on the Commission. Although the Commission was, of course, nominated by the Government, it was to be a Parliamentary Commission with enormous powers conferred upon it by Parliament. Now, Parliament consisted of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, and he believed that

  1907
  if the House of Lords exercised their undoubted privilege of suggesting two additional men to whom individually no possible objection could be taken, it would be a graceless act for this House to object to that addition. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond was eminently qualified for the work, and he stood as high among Members of this House as he stood in the profession to which he was so distinguished an ornament.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he thought it only reasonable that in this particular instance the House of Lords should have a voice. They had treated with the greatest tenderness the recommendations of the House of Commons; they had not displaced a single one of the seven names which were inserted, but had added the names of two other extremely eminent men, which they felt would add weight to the Commission. A Commission of nine members would only differ from a Commission of seven in the greater knowledge, experience, and inquiring power which it would possess. It would be a most ungracious act to press for the omission of these names. Canon Blakesley, whom he had known for a great many years, was one of the most able and universally well-informed of all the tutors at Trinity College, Cambridge, and so scrupulous was he in his desire to act impartially as a Commissioner that during the two years in which he had now been designated as a Commissioner, he had purposely abstained from taking an active part in the discussion of educational subjects in public, which he would otherwise have been anxious to do. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was also admirably qualified for being placed upon the Commission.
  MR. NEATEalso thought the addition of the name of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) would be very desirable, as his legal authority would add great weight to the Commission, while his long experience as Attorney General would enable him to moderate between the extreme elements upon the Commission.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if the Commission was now a well-balanced one it would not be advisable to interfere with it by the addition of names, however distinguished, if the effect of so doing would be to destroy the balance of opinion. He should vote with the Secretary of State for India.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 18: Majority 10.
  Other Amendments disagreed to.
  Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—Sir STAFFORD NORTRCOTE, Mr. WALPOLE, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, Mr. NOEL, and Mr. WHITMORE:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

POOR RELIEF BILL.—(Lords.)— [BILL 186.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. NEATE MR. NEATE moved the insertion of a new clause, (Greater uniformity in treatment of casual poor). The hon. and learned Member observed that there was a competition of cruelty on the part of the different unions. They were constantly inquiring what was the maximum of labour, and what was the minimum of accommodation for the casual poor. The result was, the treatment of that class of paupers sank in some cases below the level of humanity. He believed the Poor Law Board intended to issue a Circular to the various unions with the view of having a uniform system. He was in favour of uniformity as among the unions; but he thought the principle of uniformity, as to the treatment of all persons coming under the denomination of "casual poor" had been carried too far already. It was true that very many of those persons adopted a vagrant life voluntarily; but there was a large minority of the casual poor who were in that wretched condition from no fault of their own. Magistrates, in many cases, told prisoners who were brought before them as vagrants that "if they would take themselves off to some other districts they might be discharged at once." But this was altogether foreign to the purpose for which they were appointed, and it would be attended with good results if the Home Secretary were now and then to remind magistrates so acting that they sat not as protectors of the rates, but as administrators of the law. A distinction ought to be drawn between mere vagrants and persons temporarily destitute. Mere vagrants ought never to be sent to the workhouse, for they knew perfectly well that the only courses of living which they followed were beggary or robbery, with now and then a mixture of the two. It would be very desirable if

  1909
  some statement were given to the House of the intention of the Poor Law Board with reference to this subject, which deserved, if time allowed it, a much fuller discussion.
  Clause (Greater uniformity in treatment of casual poor,)—(Mr. Neate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexpressed regret that his hon. and learned Friend, in accordance with the Notice which had been given, had not brought forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session, when it might have received that careful consideration which its importance demanded. The first portion of the clause related to the issuing of orders prescribing the time and conditions of the admission of casual poor into the workhouse; and the second enacted that vagrants should be detained in the workhouse a certain specified time after their admission. He doubted the wisdom of the latter provision because it would naturally occur that vagrants would avoid the workhouse, seeing they were liable to be detained. The visiting of the casual poor by one or more Guardians was a thing which he considered would be impossible to carry out. So much for the clause. Then came the question as to what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the order proposed to be issued? In reply, he had to say that the Poor Law Board were fully conscious of the need of uniformity in dealing with this matter. It was obvious that no system which endeavoured to separate the really deserving poor from the vagrants would be successful unless uniformity were had recourse to. Vagrancy had increased very considerably all over the country within the last two years, owing, doubtless, to the financial crisis and the consequent absence of employment. But in the metropolis, where a novel system of dealing with vagrants had been adopted, it was found that the proportion of vagrants in London in January, 1868, had only increased by 11½ per cent over the number in January, 1866, whereas throughout the rest of the country the increase of vagrants was no less than 50 per cent. That clearly proved that the practice in London was better than the practice in the rest of the country, and accordingly the Poor Law
  1910
  Board had it in contemplation by a General Order to extend the system which had already been found so beneficial in practice. It would be required, for instance, that Guardians should take the responsibility of a sound and vigilant discrimination between deserving travellers in search of work and professional vagrants not really destitute, by the appointment of officers capable of exercising such discrimination; and that where practicable the police should be appointed assistant relieving officers. Another provision would be that a proper search should be instituted, to secure that persons applying for relief should have no means of obtaining lodging or food in any other way. A book of descriptions would also be kept, in which the persons of the vagrants, together with their line of travel, would be described. Again, it was very desirable that uniformity should be secured, at least between neighbouring unions, in the diet and lodging of vagrants, and also in the task of work which they would have to do in return for their lodging and food; and some provision might well be made under this head for increasing their task of work in the case of continued applications for relief by habitual tramps. With regard to the accommodation of tramps, it would be very desirable that baths should be provided in all cases, and that each person should have a separate or divided bed place. The forthcoming Order would likewise suggest in cases where it might be practicable that the accommodation for deserving travellers should be different from that given to professional vagrants. He trusted that the provisions of the Order, as he had sketched them out, would be satisfactory to the House, and would be productive of beneficial effects in checking vagrancy; at all events, the attempt was well worth making. In another respect also it might be found possible to assimilate the practice in rural districts to that which obtained in the metropolis. In the country the expense of maintaining vagrants was sustained by the unions separately, while in London it was thrown on the common fund. And there was a reason for putting this charge upon the common fund which did not hold good in other cases, that with regard to vagrants that knowledge of local circumstances, which was the safeguard of local administration, did not apply. Vagrants were generally the poor of the country, and not of any particular union, and, looking at

  1911
  the matter in that light, it might be a subject for future consideration whether, by analogy to the common fund in the metropolis, the charges for vagrants might not be thrown upon the county rates. It might also be matter for consideration on some future occcasion whether the care and custody of vagrants might not be put entirely into the hands of the police. However, nothing of this kind was proposed to be done by the Order which was shortly to be issued, and he merely mentioned these points for the information of hon. Members. There was one thing which would do even more to check vagrancy than any improvement, however meritorious, in local administration, and that was, if some means could be devised of checking the mistaken bestowal of alms by the charitable public. When the public came to understand that persons really in want of relief could obtain it either from the poor or from the county rates, they would be less disposed, he hoped, to bestow mistaken charity than they were at present. But as long as the indiscriminate bestowal of alms to anybody who asked; for them continued—and it was always easier to give than to refuse—vagrancy; must continue to flourish in this country.
  MR. HENLEYconsidered the subject dealt with by the clause before the House one of the gravest importance. He was very glad that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) was not going to press his Motion, because lie did not think it went to the root of the question. This matter of vagrancy would, in his opinion, never be ameliorated unless they treated casual poor as they treated all other classes of poor. The present system was really nothing more than a system of shifts and contrivances in order to throw the burden of maintaining vagrants off the shoulders of one parish upon another, Instead of meeting the evil, or attempting to face it, we strove to shift these vagrants from one place to another at the least possible expense and inconvenience. Thus we had some 50,000 people constantly circulating all round the country, and proving just as great a burden to the ratepayers as they would be if settled in one place, and had the means afforded them of living decently, instead of being, as they were, a curse to the whole body politic. Unless the question were looked upon in this large view, they would never be successful in abating this great pest to society. The present system reminded him of hunting
  1912
  crows from one field in order to let them settle down upon another. The evil would never be abated unless they grappled with it boldly and in a large comprehensive manner.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read the third time.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will not think me unreasonable if I move at this stage of the Bill that Clause 3 be struck out. I shall also have to object to clauses from 6 to 12 inclusive, which are connected with Clause 3 in substance; but the clause to which I now object is the 3rd. By that clause the Poor Law Board is enabled, after giving notice to the Guardians, to appoint what officers it may think fit in any or each union of this country, and to direct what salaries shall be paid to these officers out of the rates, thereby acquiring a power totally to supersede every Board of Guardians in the country with reference to the appointment of officers and the payment of these officers out of the rates, which each Board of Guardians is bound to collect. This, Sir, is a very decided step towards the establishment of a centralized power; and I further find that it is understood in the House that this step is taken with the immediate view of appointing chaplains of other denominations than the Church of England, and among these Roman Catholic priests as chaplains. We have had some discussion upon this clause, and a division. This clause is mixed up with miscellaneous clauses in this Bill, but taken in connection with the clauses from 6 to 12, inclusive, it constitutes a separate portion of the Bill; this is understood and acknowledged. I wish, then, to show the House the sort of sense in which these provisions,; when taken together, are understood by the conductors of some of the Roman Catholic papers. Last Saturday there appeared an article on the subject of these clauses in The Weekly Register, a well known Ultramontane Roman Catholic paper, and I will take the liberty of reading the concluding portion of that article to the House, in order to warn the House and to warn the country of the sort of operations that the conductors of this newspaper expect the clauses, to which I have alluded, will have, when the power they confer is enforced by the Poor Law

  1913
  Board. This is the conclusion of the article—
  "As the Bill has already passed the House of Lords, it will be law in a day or two, and the Marylebone, Pancras, and Chelsea Boards of Guardians will have lost their proselytizing power, and be compelled to carry the Poor Law into effect, in accordance with the enlightened and generous views of the Whig and Tory Governments, and of the two great parties in Parliament. We promise these low-bred, discomfited bigots that they may calculate upon a rigid surveillance of their future conduct, and upon the adoption of energetic measures to force them to do their duty, however sorely it may go against their grain,"
  Now, Sir, no one can read this paragraph, which is strictly in accordance with the tenour of the whole article, without seeing that the conductors of this newspaper—which is a very influential Roman Catholic organ, advocating Ultramontane principles—consider that these clauses in the Bill are virtually penal upon the Guardians of the unions to which they allude—nay, more, virtually penal upon the Guardians of the unions throughout the whole country. It is obvious, Sir, that a law is not less a law because it passes this House, when there are not above 100 Members remaining in town to attend our Sittings than if it had passed in a House of 500 Members; and my conviction is that these clauses would not have passed unless the House had been in the feeble condition in which it is usually found during the dog days. These clauses will, nevertheless, have the force of law. There were but two Amendments made on these clauses. Both of them were made last night. The first Amendment was to this effect—whereas, the 10th clause stood so that every adult pauper, every adult inmate of a union-house, would be compelled, whether he or she liked it, or whether they disliked it, to receive the visitation of a minister of the particular denomination, to which such pauper inmate was entered on the Creed Register, as belonging. The House was last night merciful enough to decide, that, if after once receiving the visitation of such minister or priest, any pauper objected to a renewal of the visitation, he should not be compelled again to submit to it. We had a division upon that point, in which those Members, who have been the most active promoters of these clauses voted against this Amendment; for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) proposed an Amendment upon that Amendment—whereby he would have
  1914
  again interposed the authority of the Poor Law Board, that of the central authority—to control the freedom, the discretion given in this Amendment, to the unhappy pauper as to whether he would continue to receive or would decline the ministration of the priest or minister of the denomination to which he is under the Bill to be registered as belonging. This Amendment was rejected, but the Amendment which the House has adopted goes only to this—There is no power in the man to alter the description of the religion to which he is held to belong in the Register, the entry being made in the first instance when he comes into the union-house; but he may object to receive the ministrations of the individual minister or priest after he has been once visited by him. Now, I say that this exception which we introduced last night in favour of the religious freedom of the individual, small as it is, un-mistakeably proves the stringent character of the whole measure. But there was another Amendment made last night, and it is still more remarkable. When the title of the Bill was read the learned Lord Advocate—and the Lord Advocate is always held to be the Minister for Scotland in this House—moved, that the title of the Bill should be altered so as to mark clearly that the operation of the Bill is limited to England and Wales. As a good Scotchman, the Lord Advocate has taken care to exclude his own country from the operation of the measure. Sir, it is a well-known fact that the policy of the Ultramontane party, in this and every country, where the State is not Roman Catholic, is to secularize the State; to divorce the State from all connection with any religion as its own. The operation of these clauses will be to constitute the Poor Law Board, which is a secular Board, but which, as has been over and over again stated in the course of the debates on this Bill, is at present subject to, and acting under, Ultramontane influences—[" No, no! "]—I say that has been over and over again stated, and that no one has denied it in debate. The operation of these clauses is, I repeat, to constitute that secular Board the supreme judge of the religion of the inmates of those workhouses; the supreme judge of the religion in which the children in those workhouses shall be brought up; the sole arbiter as to which of the various religious denominations in this country the religious teaching of deserted children shall be committed. Take then this Bill,

  1915
  as exemplified by these clauses, and it is clear that the central power of the Poor Law Board is to over-ride the Guardians of every union in the country with respect to the appointment of officers and the allotment of salaries to those officers. A Creed Register is for the first time established as a public document; not as a document in the manner it has hitherto existed, for the information of the Guardians only, and for their guidance, but as a public document open to the ministers of every denomination in order that they may claim the inmates of those workhouses according to the description of their religion in the Creed Register as their peculiar property. I have described the Amendment by which there is to be a partial mitigation of this system in the case of individual adults; but as the Bill now stands, under the operation of these clauses, when once a man, or a child, whether a boy or a girl, is entered upon the Register, as belonging to a particular denomination, he is the property, the religious property of the minister of that denomination who may undertake to visit the workhouse; the minister of whose chapel is nearest the workhouse having the preference in claiming or asserting this property in the pauper inmates or children of his denomination. Now, Sir, these provisions have been proposed in two Parliaments and in several Sessions; but never until this House was in its present debilitated condition have those provisions received the assent of the House. They are of a most stringent character, and I wish to take this opportunity of making known to the whole body of Guardians throughout the country the nature and extent of the power which these clauses give to the central authority, the Poor Law Board, over them. I wish to inform them that in the opinion of the Ultramontane journal, which I have quoted, this power is to be exercised in the sense of being a penal power. I wish to inform them of the kind of regulation and coercion to which these clauses will subject them. And I wish to do so particularly before this present Parliament is dissolved. For if the Ultramontane organ, to which I have referred is correct in its assertions, there is a coalition between the Leaders of the two great parties in this House for the purpose of thus crippling, incapacitating, and coercing the local administrations of this country in all matters connected with the religious teaching, not
  1916
  only of the adults, but of the children in every union workhouse or union-house throughout this country. Sir, it is my belief that the allegation of proselytism, which this Ultramontane newspaper adduces against the Guardians, is if not altogether unfounded, to say the least grossly exaggerated; and, let it be remembered, that this allegation comes from an Ultramontane newspaper, the organ of the men, who are themselves the most unscrupulous of proselytizers. This allegation is, I believe, a mere attempt to conceal or to excuse the extension of this central power of the Poor Law Board over the administration of the Poor Law in matters, which enter more deeply into the social condition of the people than any others. No Parliament has hitherto permitted this central authority to reach to such an extent. Sir, we are told that we are in the midst of a crisis. So we are. It is said to be a crisis for the Irish Church. So it may be. But the crisis that we are passing through is, in my opinion, a constitutional crisis. The attempt is to secularize the State, whilst its central power, as secular, is increased over matters connected with religion. All this tends to the establishment of a far less free and a much more coercive system of government than that under which we have hitherto lived. Seeing, therefore, that the bearings of the clauses are of the most important description, that they touch the constitutional system of this country, that they invade the great principle of religious freedom, and the system of local self-government and local administration, I have thought that it would be inconsistent with my duty, as there has been no general discussion on the main provisions and purport of this Bill, and as these clauses form the most operative and characteristic portion of the measure; for these reasons I think it inconsistent with my duty, to those I represent, and to the Guardians of the poor generally, not to take this opportunity of informing them of the stringency of this measure, and of the opinion of its future operation which is entertained by those who have been and are the chief promoters of this Bill,
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, with Amendments.

DISTRICT CHURCH TITHES ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 246.]

  [Lords.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee (according to Order).
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Sect. 9 of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 42 repealed).
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the effect of the Bill would he to divide the clergy of the Church of England into two classes—rectors and vicars. Under the Church Building Acts a great variety of designations had been bestowed upon different bodies of the clergy, who were styled incumbents, perpetual curates, and so forth. This was found to be a great inconvenience, which the present Bill was intended to remove. There was, however, already in operation a clause of an Act of Parliament under which if a portion of the tithes were given to an incumbent he could, with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, be declared a rector or a vicar as the case might be. The 2nd clause of the present measure fully provided for the division of the clergy into the two classes of rectors and vicars, and he should therefore move the omission of the 1st clause.
  MR. MONKregarded this as a most extraordinary attempt at legislation. His right hon. Friend who had moved the omission of the 1st clause seemed particularly anxious to undo all that had been done by the House of Lords. When the Bill was introduced into that House it consisted of a single clause, which was the second in the Bill as it now stood. The fact was that a compromise was come to. His right hon. Friend had not at all clearly explained the object of the 1st clause. Under the 9th section of the Act of 28 & 29 Vict. a clergyman who purchased even an infinitesimal amount of tithes might, with the assistance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, become a rector. Indeed, he was credibly informed that a case had arisen in which the Commissioners were required to convert into a rector a perpetual curate who had purchased tithes which returned him an annual income of something under 2d.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he thought the duty of the House clearly was to consider the Bill on its merits with regard to what had been said in "another place." He
  1918
  should, this being so, support the Motion for the omission of the clause.
  Motion negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

WEST INDIES BILL— [BILL 124.]
(Mr. Adderley, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
WEST INDIES BILL— [BILL 124.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENT. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [27th July] proposed to be made to the Amendment made by The Lords to the West Indies Bill; and which Amendment was,
  To leave out the words "as such coadjutor, continue to act in the same manner as at present as Archdeacon of Middlesex," in order to insert the words "and exercises episcopal functions therein, continue to receive out of the Consolidated Fund the annual payment of two thousand pounds which has been hitherto made to him in part by the Bishop of Jamaica out of the stipend of three thousand pounds paid to the said Bishop from the Consolidated Fund under the before recited Acts, and in part out of the stipend appropriated to his Archdeaconry of Middlesex out of the Consolidated Fund, under the said Acts: Provided, That during his receipt of such annual payment no payment shall be made to him out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex,"—(Mr. Russell Gurney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of The Lords' Amendment."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would support him in objecting to a proposal which, if adopted, would form a very bad precedent. The House was asked to make a new grant out of the Consolidated Fund by way of Amendment to an Amendment of the other House without any Resolution having been come to on the subject by the House in Committee. The clause, if amended as proposed, would give to the Bishop of Kingston £800 as his own salary and £1,200 from the Consolidated Fund as agent of the Bishop of Jamaica, so that the proposal actually suggested the appropriation of £1,200 out of the Consolidated Fund. The Act under which the payments were to be made was the 5 & 6 Vict., which empowered Her Majesty to devote such sums from the Consolidated Fund as she deemed necessary to carry out any arrangement which might

  1919
  be come to for the spiritual welfare of the people of Jamaica. It appeared to be a new charge upon the Consolidated Fund for the benefit of a particular individual, and such a charge ought not to be created except in Committee. The proposition ought not, he believed, now to be made, and he trusted, therefore, that the Lords' Amendment, which was a very harmless one, would be agreed to. It was harmless because it could never come into operation, and he hoped, therefore, that the House, out of compliment to the other branch of the Legislature, would agree to the Amendment as sent down.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he hoped the time would soon come, and he should see it, when the question of Bishops' salaries would occupy as little time in that House as the payment of salaries to Dissenting ministers and of funds for the erection of chapels. With regard to the question now before the House, he should vote against the proposed alteration of the Lords' Amendment, for the reason that if it did not actually create a new charge upon the Consolidated Fund, it would create a charge for an additional life.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that by the patent under which his appointment was made the Bishop of Kingston was not merely appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Jamaica. For his duties as coadjutor to the Bishop of Jamaica he received £1,200 a year out of the salary of the Bishop of Jamaica, in addition to the sum of £400, formerly £800, which he received as the Archdeacon of Middlesex. But he was also empowered on the death of the Bishop of Jamaica to perform the episcopal duties of that See until a successor had been appointed, consecrated, and had arrived in the diocese. The whole object of the Amendment now proposed was that the Bishop of Kingston should, in such an event, receive the same emoluments as were now given to the Archdeacon of Middlesex. He could see no objection to this proposal, and should therefore support it.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) proposed to strike out part of the Lords' Amendment by which a pecuniary saving would be effected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman purposed to strike out that part of the Amendment which conveyed the intention of the other House, and to put in something entirely different in its nature, and not
  1920
  in any way connected with the subject of the Lords' Amendment; and he desired to know, whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House to take advantage of the technical fact that an Amendment had been made by the other House to insert a fresh provision which could by no possibility have any connection with that Amendment?
  MR. AYTOUNsubmitted that they had no power to do what was proposed by the Amendment. Power was given to grant a salary out of the Consolidated Fund to some person holding a particular office and provided for under the Act of Parliament; but was it competent to them to transfer the salary to some totally different office?
  MR. SPEAKER: A Question was put to me on this point last night, and I made answer to it that it appears to me, so far as the privileges of the House are concerned, the question turns upon whether there is any new charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and while the Bill proposes to relieve the Consolidated Fund of £20,000 this Amendment would relieve it of £ 18,000 only. The question of the merits of the Bill is a matter for the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) has asked me whether in point of form this Amendment can be put? The question is whether it is relevant, and it appears to me that it is relevant to the Amendment of the Lords. I do not mean to say it is not a somewhat complicated question. I adhere to the substance of the opinion I gave last night that, as there is no new charge upon the Consolidated Fund, therefore I think it is a matter more to be decided by the House on its merits than by any opinion from the Chair.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 29: Majority 1.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.